tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/leave-26465/articlesLeave – The Conversation2018-11-23T13:40:09Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1073352018-11-23T13:40:09Z2018-11-23T13:40:09ZTheresa May could win a slice of British ethnic minority vote with tough Brexit immigration line – what my research reveals<p>Theresa May has faced widespread criticism following comments to the Confederation of British Industry that EU nationals have jumped “the queue” to migrate to the UK ahead of non-EU nationals during the UK’s membership of the bloc. The prime minister <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-to-cbi-19-november-2018">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It will no longer be the case that EU nationals, regardless of the skills or experience they have to offer, can jump the queue ahead of engineers from Sydney or software developers from Delhi. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>May has been criticised for ignoring the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-eu-migration-has-done-for-the-uk-103461">contribution to the UK of EU nationals</a>, who have been living with great concern about what their futures hold since the 2016 referendum result.</p>
<p>Despite reports that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/brexit-ethnic-minorities-hit-job-losses-poverty-eu">Brexit will hit ethnic minorities harder</a>, May’s speech is likely to appeal to ethnic minority Leave voters, who <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/minority-ethnic-attitudes-and-the-2016-eu-referendum/">my research</a> has shown feel it’s unfair that EU migrants have had an easier route to the UK than non-EU migrants. Similar rhetoric which pits EU and non-EU migrants against each other came up in black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) Leave voters’ reasons for supporting Brexit.</p>
<p>Minority voters <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2018/09/britain-s-eight-million-ethnic-minorities-are-still-being-ignored-over">overwhelmingly supported Remain</a> in the EU referendum. Yet May’s reference to attracting more “software engineers from Delhi” will appeal to British Indian voters who were the <a href="https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/conference/fac-socsci/epop-2017/papers.aspx">most eurosceptic ethnic minority group</a>.</p>
<p>The Labour Party continues to attract the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45765496">lion’s share of the minority vote</a>. This is despite attempts made by the Conservatives in recent years, <a href="https://www.economist.com/britain/2017/12/14/theresa-may-is-borrowing-from-david-camerons-back-catalogue">beginning under David Cameron</a>, to court ethnic minority support. Yet, <a href="https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/conference/fac-socsci/epop-2017/papers.aspx">party preference didn’t have a significant effect</a> on attitudes towards EU membership among ethnic minorities.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="http://theconversation.com/theresa-mays-dog-whistle-rhetoric-on-eu-citizens-jumping-the-queue-and-its-effect-on-my-four-year-old-107303">Theresa May's dog-whistle rhetoric on EU citizens jumping the queue – and its effect on my four-year-old</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An end to ‘preferential’ treatment</h2>
<p>In 20 focus groups and interviews with ethnic minority Remain and Leave voters I conducted over the summer of 2017, as part of my PhD research, I heard many BAME Leave voters give European immigration as a key reason for supporting Brexit. They wanted to see fewer barriers for Commonwealth migration, disgruntled with what they saw as “preferential” treatment for EU migrants who they believe have had easier access to live and work in the UK. </p>
<p>Of my participants, Bangladeshi restaurant owners blamed freedom of movement for the staff shortage crisis in the curry industry and the difficulties associated with recruiting staff from outside the EU. They felt that the government’s visa stipulations including an <a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06724">earnings threshold of £18,600</a> were caused by an inability to control European immigration. </p>
<p>When groups such as <a href="https://muslimsforbritainorg.wordpress.com/">Muslims for Britain</a> and <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/africans-for-britain-group-quits-leave-2016-4">Africans for Britain</a> campaigned for Brexit, they cited competition posed by EU migrant labour and the contribution made by Britain’s former colonies, which they felt gave them a greater claim to belonging in the UK. Leaving the EU, the BAME Leave voters I interviewed argued, would lead to greater trade and immigration from the Commonwealth. One member of a focus group of Bangladeshi male Leave voters felt they had been made to feel “inferior” to EU citizens:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There’s a historical link; we, our ancestors, came to this country, contributed to British economy, building infrastructure, and even lots of our ancestors fought in Second World War in favour of Britain. They sacrificed their lives … what’s good (about) being a member of Commonwealth country? Europeans have been prioritised and we’ve been neglected.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some saw EU policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy as a disadvantage to African and Asian economies outside the EU bloc. And there was a strong sense amongst BAME Leave voters of Europe as a “white Fortress”. For example, one British Indian Leave voter stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>At the time of the European migration crisis we saw a number of countries putting up borders within the EU so I think the whole idea of the EU as this bastion of free movement and respects immigrants or whatever was a bit shallow for me.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>An electoral mountain to climb</h2>
<p>But May’s promise that Brexit will lead to a fairer immigration system that doesn’t discriminate against where people come from won’t necessarily convince those ethnic minority voters angered by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/windrush-generation-latest-to-be-stripped-of-their-rights-in-the-name-of-migration-control-95158">Windrush scandal</a> and those who see her as chief architect of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hostile-environment-the-uk-governments-draconian-immigration-policy-explained-95460">“hostile environment”</a> policy on immigration. Adding to this will be May’s emphasis in her CBI speech that citizens from mainly “white” countries such as Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand will be able to use e-gates at UK borders as part of a new post-Brexit immigration system. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="http://theconversation.com/windrush-scandal-a-historian-on-why-destroying-archives-is-never-a-good-idea-95481">Windrush scandal: a historian on why destroying archives is never a good idea</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The great majority of ethnic minority Britons voted Remain in the EU referendum, and the Conservatives’ tough rhetoric on immigration will do little to attract their vote – particularly because many supported Remain because of the perceived racism and xenophobia around anti-immigration discourses during the referendum. Many of those I interviewed felt that it wasn’t just immigrants or Europeans who were being targeted, but anyone who wasn’t white including British black and Asian people. One Remain voter of black African background felt that even though European immigration was a key issue in the 2016 referendum, rhetoric such as “we want our country back” felt like it was “aimed at us”. </p>
<p>May’s plan to sell the Brexit deal to voters as an opportunity to introduce a “fairer” immigration system may appeal to some ethnic minority voters, but it largely serves to stoke tensions between EU nationals and longer-settled migrant groups from the Commonwealth and their descendants. As members of the Windrush generation found out so harshly, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hostile-environment-immigration-policy-has-made-britain-a-precarious-place-to-call-home-95546">rules on who’s welcome in Britain</a> and who isn’t are arbitrary and ever-changing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107335/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neema Begum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Theresa May is courting ethnic minority support for her Brexit deal with her rhetoric on EU nationals 'jumping the queue'.Neema Begum, Research Associate, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1017612018-08-17T14:55:06Z2018-08-17T14:55:06ZBrexit: yes, constituencies have moved to Remain, and here's why that could matter<p>Much excitement has been created by an analysis of YouGov polling data released by the anti-Brexit <a href="https://www.bestforbritain.org/research_shows_brexit_fight_far_from_over">Best for Britain campaign</a> and first reported by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain">The Observer</a>. The analysis identified 112 constituencies where it had previously been estimated by <a href="https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/final-estimates-of-the-leave-vote-or-areal-interpolation-and-the-uks-referendum-on-eu-membership-5490b6cab878">Chris Hanretty</a> that a majority of voters had voted to Leave in 2016 but where a majority were now estimated to be in favour of Remain. Described by Best for Britain as “a monumental shift in public opinion”, the impression, at least, was given that the analysis was evidence of a significant new swing of public opinion in favour of Remain.</p>
<p>The reality, however, was more prosaic. The polling data on which the analysis was based was – primarily, though not exclusively – a <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/4e1ciqwvua/Copy%2520of%2520PV%2520results%2520180807%2520day%2520one_w.pdf">large 10,000 sample poll</a> conducted earlier this month by YouGov for another anti-Brexit campaign, <a href="https://www.peoples-vote.uk/">The People’s Vote</a>, which is campaigning for a referendum on whatever Brexit deal eventually emerges. The data were reported as showing that support for Remain across the country as a whole now stands at 53%, while support for Leave was estimated to be 47% (which, indeed, were the figures that had previously been published for the People’s Vote poll in particular).</p>
<p>That, of course, represents a five-point swing from Leave to Remain as compared with the result of the 2016 referendum, when Leave won 52% and Remain 48%. But it is more or less in line with other polling conducted during the past three months. That, on average has put Remain on 52%, Leave 48%. So there is no evidence in these numbers of a significant new swing to Remain. Rather it simply represents confirmation of other recent polling that Remain appears to be slightly ahead.</p>
<h2>Key constituencies</h2>
<p>However, that still leaves the estimate of 112 constituencies where in 2016 there was a Leave majority but where Remain is now thought to be ahead. That sounds like a lot of constituencies. Indeed, it is sufficient to ensure that, in contrast to the position in 2016, more than half (341) of the 632 constituencies in Britain are now thought to contain a majority of Remain supporters. </p>
<p>But the figure is just a reflection of the relatively even spread of the Leave vote across much of provincial England together with Wales in the 2016 referendum. There were no less than 115 constituencies in 2016 where Hanretty estimated that Leave won between 50% and 55% of the vote. If the 5% swing since 2016 implied by YouGov’s polling had occurred in each and every constituency, that would be sufficient to turn all of these 115 seats from being majority Leave seats to majority Remain constituencies – albeit only narrowly. </p>
<p>In other words, it would be surprising if any analysis of polling based on a 53% Remain vote across the country as a whole did anything other than identify over 100 constituencies where the majority outcome would now be different.</p>
<p>True, the analysis that underlay Best for Britain’s headline figure did much more than simply assume the whole country had swung to the same extent. The statistical technique that was used employs polling data to identify the probability that voters with particular characteristics will vote Remain or Leave, examines government statistics and other sources to calculate the proportion of people with those characteristics in each constituency and then combines the two to estimate the likely outcome of a ballot in each seat.</p>
<p>Consequently, if particular kinds of voters (perhaps in particular kinds of places) have swung from Leave to Remain, then the analysis should find a bigger swing to Remain in places with more such voters – and, conversely, a lower swing elsewhere. But the fact that the analysis emerged with more or less the same number of seats swinging from Leave to Remain as would be anticipated from a uniform movement across the country as a whole means that the estimated variation in the swing had little or no net impact on the total number of seats whose status is thought to have changed.</p>
<h2>What does change</h2>
<p>But that doesn’t mean that the variation which is said to have been identified is not of interest. One of the aims of those currently campaigning against Brexit appears to be <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/pressure-rises-on-jeremy-corbyn-as-unite-open-to-new-brexit-referendum-11425257">to try to persuade the Labour party</a>, in particular, to change its stance and at least come out in favour of a second referendum – if not indeed to oppose Brexit entirely. </p>
<p>Thus, it was notable that the Best for Britain analysis <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain">is reported as showing</a> that the swing from Leave to Remain “has been driven by doubts among Labour voters who backed Leave” and that, consequently, it is greatest in Labour heartlands in the North of England and Wales.</p>
<p>Doubtless anti-Brexit campaigners are hoping that this finding will help persuade Labour MPs representing constituencies where a majority voted Leave in 2016 that a change in the party’s stance would not be so harmful electorally as some of them at least seem to fear. Those fears might always have been exaggerated given that <a href="https://whatukthinks.org/eu/is-labours-brexit-dilemma-being-misunderstood/">as we have previously shown</a> even outside London, a majority of Labour voters in Labour seats voted for Remain, but are real nonetheless. Best for Britain’s findings may not have been as dramatic as they were portrayed, but they may yet play an important role in Labour’s debate about what to do about Brexit.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101761/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Curtice receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council as part of its &#39;The UK in a Changing Europe&#39; initiative. He is Senior Research Fellow at NatCen Social Research. A longer version of this article appears at <a href="http://www.whatukthinks.org/eu">www.whatukthinks.org/eu</a></span></em></p>Results showing a large number of Leave constituencies now back Remain caused great excitement but don't necessarily mean major change is on the way.John Curtice, Professor of Politics, Strathclyde UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/985832018-06-21T11:23:06Z2018-06-21T11:23:06ZRussian influence in the Brexit vote? We don't really know how to deal with that<p>A series of allegations regarding Russia and the 2016 EU referendum in the UK have been published the Observer newspaper, part of the Guardian stable. The claims centred around Brexit campaign Leave.EU (separate to the official Vote Leave campaign) and businessman Arron Banks, who bankrolled it in money and services to the tune of £12m, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/electoral-commission-to-investigate-arron-banks-brexit-donations-eu-referendum">reportedly</a> becoming the biggest political donor in UK history.</p>
<p>The country’s Electoral Commission has already fined Leave.EU £70,000 after an investigation in which it was “<a href="https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/243009/Report-on-Investigation-Leave.EU.pdf">satisfied beyond reasonable doubt</a>” that the campaign failed to declare £77,380 in its spending return for the referendum. This would have pushed it over the allotted £700,000 spending limit for the campaign.</p>
<p>But the allegations concerning Russia are altogether more difficult, troubling and potentially challenging for British lawmakers.</p>
<div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props='{"tweetId":"1008385969295372289"}'></div>
<p>The Observer reports that documents it has seen <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting">suggest</a> that there were multiple meetings between the leaders of Leave.EU and high-ranking Russian officials between November 2015 and 2017, two of which were said to have been held the week that Leave.EU launched its official campaign. The second allegation is also particularly interesting – that the Russian ambassador introduced key figures in Leave.EU to a businessman who purportedly offered Banks an opportunity to buy Russian goldmines. This also included a trip to Moscow to meet partners behind a gold project. Banks has repeatedly denied involvement with Russian officials or that Russian money played any part in the Brexit campaign.</p>
<h2>Influence is many-headed</h2>
<p>These allegations are, at present, just allegations. At this stage it is unclear which – if any – rules have been broken and what the consequences would be if they had. But the communications, according to the reports, do tell us something about different ways of peddling influence in elections and referendums. It’s especially interesting for those of us who research the area of political financing. We follow the money, But what if there’s no money? “Follow the deal that could materialise (as money) at a later date” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://theconversation.com/british-election-spending-laws-explained-and-why-they-need-updating-93980">previous article</a> I outlined that money, in electoral terms, is hydraulic. Like water, it’s uncontrollable. It flows into the political system, finding its way around legal obstacles that are placed in its way. If money is hydraulic, then influence is the hydra. It has many heads, all of which present unique challenges for those trying to prevent it occurring unduly.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/202704">my work</a> I show that there are two broad types of corruption in politics. The first – donor-based corruption – is a relatively simple quid pro quo. Money is given as funding in exchange for a political service. This might be a favour, a particular policy, or some form of patronage or ennoblement. The second is deferred gratification – a type of corruption based around personal links and relationships. Wealth might still play a role, but corrupt activity is less likely to take the form of a tangible quid pro quo. It’s instead more likely to take an opaque form – a revolving door or the promise of future business deals.</p>
<h2>A different kind of corruption</h2>
<p>In practical terms this shows us that we shouldn’t think that cutting off obvious sources of (illicit) money into the political system will cut off the only potential corrupting influence. The hydra is a many-headed beast, legislation should reflect this. We often think that measures such as introducing a cap on donations and increasing levels of state funding will reduce levels of corruption in politics. While there are <a href="https://scscsussex.wordpress.com/2015/10/17/of-nuclear-zombie-blasters-and-party-funding/">many good reasons</a> for introducing more state funding of political parties, this is not one of them.</p>
<p>The way that money and influence was weaponised in the 2016 referendum has provided a multitude of lessons for academics, policymakers and journalists alike, even before the question of a Russian role came up.</p>
<p>Finally, it should also be noted that Banks and his colleague Andy Wigmore seem to revel in the role of chief mischief makers. Wigmore <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/arron-banks-i-am-not-an-evil-genius_uk_5b1f9be7e4b0adfb826da5b9">told a House of Commons committee</a> that he sees his role, partly, as that of an “agent provacateur”. After that, he <a href="https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1008257822495264768">sent a picture</a> of himself with a Soviet colonel in Cold War Berlin to Jim Waterson, media editor of the Guardian, saying it would “help with the Russian agent theme”. Many of the statements they make should be taken with massive a pinch of salt.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98583/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Power received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>The rules are clear on campaign donations but meetings with foreign representatives are more of a grey area.Sam Power, Research Associate in Party Membership and Engagement at the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield and Associate Tutor, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/944332018-04-11T20:04:01Z2018-04-11T20:04:01Z'Hang on a minute lads, I’ve got a great idea!' Brexit, crisis management and sensemaking<p>March 30 officially marked [<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/1-year-to-brexit-so-much-to-do-so-little-time-for-both/2018/03/29/55049a8e-3306-11e8-b6bd-0084a1666987_story.html?utm_term=.bb84d0114240">one year to go</a>] before the Brexit clock strikes – with or without an agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. At this point, nobody in the UK, even the Brexiteers themselves, are any clearer about how the British will actually find their way to the exit ramp off the European project. </p>
<p>The phase-one negotiations were eventually <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42368096">agreed upon</a> in December 2017 and the transition period was confirmed in early March 2018. But for the final break-up, the British government has yet to define in sufficient detail its future relationship with Europe, how it will achieve agreement on the details and how a host of remaining messy points will get settled in the final “divorce”.</p>
<p>Viewed from the other side of the channel, the pro-Brexit politicians seem to have <a href="https://euobserver.com/opinion/141024">unrealistic expectations</a>, and hold, like their followers on social media, an emotional relationship to the entire project. Yet the British public, at least those who voted for Brexit, still seem to follow their leaders. Terms such as <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-dogs-brexit-repeal-11153035">“dog’s Brexit”</a>, “deluded”, and “regrettable” have been used to describe the collective state of mind of those leading the “leave” camp. </p>
<p>How can we make sense of this confusing and increasingly ambiguous scenario? One possible way is through a careful study of the final scenes of a classic British film, enlightened with a bit of management science.</p>
<h2>Brexit the movie</h2>
<p>Not long after the vote that signalled the UK’s impending departure from the EU, the commentator Anne McElvoy highlighted how the 1969 heist film <em>The Italian Job</em> was a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/21/italian-job-brexit-vote">prescient parody of the Brexit melodrama</a>. Released in France as <em>L'Or se barre</em> (“The gold takes off”), the film starred Michael Caine in an iconic role, heading up a team of British criminals out to steal 4 million pounds (5 million euros) of gold in Turin, Italy. </p>
<p>The team’s secret weapon was a trio of Minis in red, white and blue, not coincidentally the colours of the Union Jack. Backed up by great music from Quincy Jones, the Minis raced through gorgeous scenery, narrow streets and even sewer pipes to hold on to the gold. The film inspired scenes in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypt3XtV6od4"><em>Bourne Identity</em></a>, among others, and even survived a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Eyw-Qiwpj0">Hollywood remake</a> in 2003.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FEltJsIwSvE?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption"><em>The Italian Job</em> trailer (1969).</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In her article, McElvoy teased out how the film revealed British insecurities around its place in Europe, and the parallels between post-Brexit UK and the Britain of 1969. With everything that’s happened since the vote, and with just one year to go now, the film’s famous final scene provides us with another view of how the upbeat, pro-Brexit narrative is unravelling.</p>
<p>The closing scenes in <em>The Italian Job</em> find our fugitive heroes, now in a van laden with gold bullion, making their escape through the Italian Alps toward Switzerland (and its welcoming banks). All the carefully laid plans go terribly awry, however, and they end up stranded, balanced over a cliff edge with their gold teetering over the abyss. If one man takes even a step toward it, they all go down. Their ringleader, Caine, is panicked and yet attempts to reassure his men that he is in control and has a plan – in a situation from which there is visibly no escape. “Hang on a minute lads, I’ve got a great idea!” he cries out. The others look utterly petrified and unconvinced, but they have no alternative other than to believe him.</p>
<h2>Follow the leaders</h2>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213133/original/file-20180404-189827-1xe16oa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213133/original/file-20180404-189827-1xe16oa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=794&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213133/original/file-20180404-189827-1xe16oa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=794&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213133/original/file-20180404-189827-1xe16oa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=794&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213133/original/file-20180404-189827-1xe16oa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=997&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213133/original/file-20180404-189827-1xe16oa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=997&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213133/original/file-20180404-189827-1xe16oa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=997&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Boris Johnson in 2012, back in the simple days before the Brexit vote.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/53797600@N04/6996040919/in/photolist-bEdxea-bEdoeF-brisME-8g57uJ-bk5bPo-bEdhNV-xsijq-bEdzdz-4AUUDT-22q9wK-fLQJUY-apYeYc-6djunX-6Ypvrs-4SAhAa-dG5Gm9-bw74Yd-ankp26-55ZcWe-7sP8Vs-jxPxM7-22u97A-brim9j-MqKv3U-8jHH5e-fddKbA-britm3-mEFjhP-britL3-d9QzFu-bEdpKT-briudb-bEdst6-AAsou-joejVr-5raQqw-eQHzV8-bEdoLk-e4Yfwu-dKDWsb-jxQAL3-d81j23-8nVeUM-cpKpdu-bo5fQJ-6iA8ZM-dquMUj-akPSLE-ph3ycV-52Lo3Z">Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This scenario can be viewed as a classic case of what <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40926-016-0040-z">organisational scholar Karl Weick</a> called “sensemaking” under conditions of risk and uncertainty. Weick developed this concept to demonstrate how leaders make sense of the unknown in order to reassure and reduce anxiety among followers. Studying organizations’ traumatic work events and crisis scenarios, Weick uncovered key moments of meaning in teams and the ensuing impact on members.</p>
<p>By providing a way forward through the unknown, leaders can provide structure, which is particularly useful when that future appears unintelligible to many. In this way, followers can move forward in a complex environment and trust their leaders, even when in doubt. Sensemaking can also be a useful approach to coping with <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14697017.2017.1279824">unexpected changes</a> in political contexts.</p>
<p>Weick also contributed to better understanding organisations and leadership through the analogy of a map as a key tool of sensemaking. Sensemaking can act as a cartographic aide to navigate uncertain conditions and environments caused by the unexpected. Perhaps the surprising part of Weick’s work is that <em>any map</em> can help make sense of a situation, even the wrong one.</p>
<p>In one well-known anecdote about World War II soldiers lost in the Alps, he pointed out that “when you’re tired, cold, hungry, and scared, any old map will do”. The soldiers apparently survived a major blizzard thanks to an old and tattered map which, they later discovered when back at the base camp, was a map of the Pyrénées, hundreds of kilometers away.</p>
<p>In a sensemaking context, the map’s rational use as a location instrument – an aid to help situate where we are and where we are going – is less important than its value as a visualization tool, a practical heuristic – a means to find a “quick and dirty” solution to a pressing problem. Better problem-solving emerges from the sense one makes of a given situation, using whatever means available.</p>
<h2>Managing through Brexit</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213129/original/file-20180404-189810-c8e7qg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213129/original/file-20180404-189810-c8e7qg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213129/original/file-20180404-189810-c8e7qg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=751&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213129/original/file-20180404-189810-c8e7qg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=751&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213129/original/file-20180404-189810-c8e7qg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=751&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213129/original/file-20180404-189810-c8e7qg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=944&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213129/original/file-20180404-189810-c8e7qg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=944&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213129/original/file-20180404-189810-c8e7qg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=944&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">UK prime minister Theresa May in 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/eu2017ee/37388975951/in/photolist-YXWgWp-W6fjvE-QG5wfm-4L7gAU-dQEged-S1h6uu-dQEgtL-VZLyLb-22EqYcS-TmX9a5-S7okdF-ezS939-6oEPcb-H3ie26-rayVfF-2q338-V3ADSb-VSZhg4-Wos8t6-4L7gXm-8MXREt-8N1VYL-8N1UrJ-Vh7nxb-8MXQ7M-8MXQAt-UUcCgE-dQEgg5-TQnN9u-8MXRSD-egNER-qThRZM-8MXMpV-8N1SWb-UqrsWD-dSK7Wn-WEwvhh-rayVUr-r8qqjs-T9EHsS-KmdVRV-TU42QS-VFD7rM-XcAciy-VPujAb-QBc16Q-JpNku8-qT9TsA-Vh7oAo-21jqzNq">Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When organisations are navigating through uncharted territory, they and their members are presented with prime opportunities to learn and to construct their future. We seem to learn more from adversity than from happier, more carefree periods. So, how we deal with the ambiguity of the present can help us in the future.</p>
<p>Since the impact of present decisions is vague at best, how can leaders and organisations develop greater ambiguity tolerance? With Brexit coming in less than a year, British citizens need to cope with ambiguity while still exercising the right to public debate and discussion as they try to educate themselves. They will also need to learn in the “post-truth” news and media environment online, and continually make sense of <em>what is</em> without too much anxiety of <em>what will be</em>.</p>
<p>Perhaps some answers lie in discovering, or rediscovering, works of popular culture which capture the heart and soul of a given group of people in a given context. Nations, like organisations, collectively experience catharsis, or the release of tension and stress, through films and stories that reflect their values and current anxieties. <em>The Italian Job</em> is one such work.</p>
<p>Michael Caine, observing his followers hanging on for their lives (and their gold), declares that he’s “got a great idea”. But before his team and the audience can hear it, the credits roll. Unfortunately, there was never a sequel to shed light on whether or not his map led the team to safety in Switzerland. For leaders in the United Kingdom, there is an urgent need to make sense of what the future holds and show their followers a map. To paraphrase Weick: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Any old map will do – even a bad Brexit map may be better than none. Just get us the heck out of here!”</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213130/original/file-20180404-189801-6a4lp6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213130/original/file-20180404-189801-6a4lp6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=410&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213130/original/file-20180404-189801-6a4lp6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=410&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213130/original/file-20180404-189801-6a4lp6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=410&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213130/original/file-20180404-189801-6a4lp6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=515&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213130/original/file-20180404-189801-6a4lp6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=515&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213130/original/file-20180404-189801-6a4lp6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=515&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Michael Caine in <em>The Italian Job</em> (1969). So how’s he going to get his team out of this one? Viewers of the film never find out.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/21/italian-job-brexit-vote">TheGuardian.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94433/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>March 30 officially marked one year to go before the Brexit clock strikes. How can the "leave" camp get out of this one? The classic 1969 heist movie 'The Italian Job' provides clues.Mark Smith, Dean of Faculty & Professor of Human Resource Management, Grenoble École de Management (GEM)Michelle Mielly, Associate Professor in People, Organizations, Society, Grenoble École de Management (GEM)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/800242017-06-26T11:58:59Z2017-06-26T11:58:59ZCorbyn's Brexit strategy may have paid off after all in 2017 election<p>The 2017 general election was billed as the “Brexit election”. Set against the backdrop of the 2016 <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/One-year-on.pdf">EU referendum</a>, the prime minister, Theresa May, framed the vote as a way of “strengthening her hand” ahead of the negotiations with the EU and ensuring stability. But, in the end, she achieved neither.</p>
<p>While the Conservative party attracted a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32624405">42.4% share of the national vote</a> – its highest share since 1979 and an increase of more than 5% on 2015 – the party failed to increase its number of seats. At 318, the Conservatives won 13 fewer seats than in 2015 and were left eight short of a majority. A working majority of 17 made way for a hung parliament and negotiations with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which if successful will leave May, now a greatly diminished figure, with a working majority of just 13.</p>
<p>Jeremy Corbyn, meanwhile, had a better night than expected. The Labour party polled 40% of the national vote – its highest share since 2001 and a 9.5-point increase since 2015. It came away with 262 seats – 30 more than in 2015.</p>
<p>Can the election result be attributed to a Brexit effect? Initial <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/brexit-lite-back-on-table-as-britain-rethinks-options-after-election">reactions</a> to the result certainly focused on the Brexit realignment. The shock Labour win in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40212652">Canterbury</a> came to epitomise this. Labour’s vote increased over 20 percentage points in this traditionally Conservative seat, which is home to two university campuses and where 55% of voters were estimated to have voted Remain. The constituency has voted Conservative since it was created in 1918.</p>
<h2>The Brexit effect</h2>
<p>Figure 1 illustrates the changes in English and Welsh constituencies by their estimated support for Leave in the 2016 EU referendum, based on figures provided by <a href="https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/">Chris Hanretty</a>. The Conservatives stagnated or fell back in Remain areas, gaining the most ground in the strongest Brexit seats, which also saw the biggest collapse of UKIP support. This fits with much of the pre-election polling showing large-scale switching from UKIP to the Conservatives.</p>
<p>The surprise comes on the Labour side. The party’s surge was greatest in the strongest Remain areas, but Labour surged everywhere else, too. Corbyn’s party was up by nearly 13 points on 2015 in seats where less than 35% voted Leave; and rose a still hefty 7.4 points in seats where more than 65% did so.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175396/original/file-20170623-25170-gqzzi8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175396/original/file-20170623-25170-gqzzi8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Brexit election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This had two important effects. First, the fall in Conservative support combined with the surge in Labour support was sufficient to topple huge majorities in Conservative-held Remain seats. This was particularly the case in London, where Labour overturned large majorities in Battersea, Kensington and Enfield Southgate. It also slashed Conservative majorities in previously safe seats such as Putney and the cities of London and Westminster. Big swings in Remain seats have created a new swathe of marginal seats for Labour to target in the next election.</p>
<p>Second, Labour’s resilience in Leave areas thwarted Conservative attempts to turn traditional working class Labour heartlands blue by consolidating UKIP support. The Conservatives increased their vote in such areas, often dramatically, and usually at UKIP’s expense. Yet, Labour also bounced back in these areas, so the net Labour to Conservative swing was weak, even in the strongest Leave seats. The Conservatives made just six gains from Labour in Leave areas of England and Wales. Most MPs representing heavily Leave seats such as Derby North, Bolsover and Stoke North held on with reduced majorities.</p>
<h2>Party strategies</h2>
<p>May expected her embrace of Brexit to fundamentally change the electoral map in her favour, by holding Remain voting heartlands while expanding into Leave-voting Labour strongholds. Instead the opposite occurred: Labour held firm in its Leave-leaning seats, and achieved often stunning advances in previously true-blue Remain seats.</p>
<p>One possible reason is that in the “Brexit election”, Corbyn’s position on the EU was better aligned with the electorate than May’s. The prime minister’s ever more strident and inflexible language on Brexit alarmed Remain-leaning voters in traditionally Conservative areas and put her reputation as a competent steward of negotiations at risk. She looked like a leader determined to appease the most vocal and ideological Brexiteers at any cost.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175426/original/file-20170623-12648-c1y7tk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jez we can, and will, win over Leavers and Remainers alike.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Corbyn’s strategy, by contrast, moved Labour towards the mildly eurosceptic centre. Faced with a complex issue where his party’s traditional position was a long way from the median voter’s, Corbyn embraced the pro-Brexit position of the median voter, even at the risk of antagonising the strongly pro-EU segments of the Labour coalition. It was a move reminiscent of one made by an earlier Labour leader. In 1997, Tony Blair gambled that he could pitch to the centre ground on economic issues while retaining the loyalties of working-class left wingers.</p>
<p>On Brexit, Corbyn pitched to the eurosceptic centre ground by voting to invoke Article 50 and accepting the end of freedom of movement. He gambled that Remain voters, alarmed by May’s rhetoric and hard Brexit policy, would recognise Labour as the only viable alternative. This Brexit Blairism helped blunt the Conservatives’ appeal in Leave areas, while allowing Labour to capitalise on alarm about May’s UKIP tribute act in Remain areas.</p>
<p>Of course, Brexit was not the only factor driving the results. Leave and Remain voting patterns capture a range of other fundamental differences between people and places: in identity attachments, social class, education levels, ethnic diversity and views of immigration, among others.</p>
<p>Yet this may be another reason Brexit Blairism proved a smart strategy. Labour’s decision to embrace departure from the EU in some form may have helped them reframe the election around other issues such as austerity and public services, and remind voters in Leave areas of their traditional suspicions about the Conservatives. Meanwhile in Remain areas, the party could advance by promising a “softer” alternative approach to “hard” Brexit. The Conservatives went into this election eager to paint Labour as out of touch and extreme, but failed to realise that, in their own heartlands, they were vulnerable to the same charge.</p>
<p><em>This article was co-published with <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/">The UK in a Changing Europe</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Goodwin receives funding from the ESRC and the UK in a Changing Europe.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Sobolewska receives funding from the ESRC and the UK in a Changing Europe. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Ford receives funding from the ESRC and the UK in a Changing Europe. </span></em></p>Jeremy Corbyn was criticised for his unclear position on Brexit, but it may actually have been the smarter move.Matthew Goodwin, Associate Professor, University of KentMaria Sobolewska, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of ManchesterRobert Ford, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/679592016-11-07T11:43:42Z2016-11-07T11:43:42ZIf the Brexit-addicted government were a small business it wouldn't last a year<p>The march towards Brexit seems relentless. Theresa May <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/25/exclusive-leaked-recording-shows-what-theresa-may-really-thinks-about-brexit">urged people to vote to stay in the EU</a> but she knows the political cost of rowing back back from the referendum result at this stage. When a High Court judgement appeared to put a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785">spanner in the works</a>, the prime minister was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/04/brexit-may-tells-merkel-and-juncker-timetable-remains-the-same">quick to assure European leaders</a> that the plan to trigger the exit process in Spring 2017 had not been derailed. This is an interesting metaphor. Rails are fixed, and once you run along them you are committed to where they go. But can being too wedded to a decision do more harm than good?</p>
<p>In looking at how businesses of all sizes and in many sectors survive and thrive <a href="https://www.brighton.ac.uk/centrim/index.aspx">over the last 25 years</a>, we’ve found there are common behaviours and attitudes. <a href="https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-business/openforum/articles/why-flexibility-is-key-to-small-business-success/">Flexibility in decision making is a key</a> factor, based on an openness to changes in the environment in and around the business. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.innovation-portal.info/">ability to sense change; to adapt quickly and cleverly</a> are crucial to being a successful innovator. Innovators don’t just adapt in terms of how they manage and what products and services they offer, they are also able to quickly and humbly reverse decisions that no longer make so much sense as the world changes around them. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianbailey/2015/10/29/is-your-dogmatic-leader-suffocating-innovation/">Fixed, dogmatic decisions create death in businesses</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144563/original/image-20161104-27919-1yvteul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144563/original/image-20161104-27919-1yvteul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144563/original/image-20161104-27919-1yvteul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144563/original/image-20161104-27919-1yvteul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144563/original/image-20161104-27919-1yvteul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144563/original/image-20161104-27919-1yvteul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144563/original/image-20161104-27919-1yvteul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144563/original/image-20161104-27919-1yvteul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Decisive?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kelsey97/27678701211/in/photolist-JaSzyp-p4oSQH-JtjPtz-ok8Ggj-oaH7D9-nC6qNa-5Pnxus-JtUrdf-otjoHw-JspgML-awgXu7-HGKozD-8EPMNE-JPFiLk-ypzcxd-nULEbf-HirnRZ-JqNR6Q-Jscd5T-JBghhq-Jvj7b6-HMr7Xy-HSL36R-obuuNC-jtp8qc-odk7M9-JvbNHw-JLFHyE-HxsDLj-o9gQCf-o4i6D7-JqCjEW-JG5bfm-JfLc6z-orjYFh-HToPRN-JLFt4N-ov5T3e-HMhorX-Jo61AH-HJAxQP-rjKfV3-oLGnke-JnFWs8-JFeJsq-GKeGaQ-pJwNBU-J3LwxC-qMMFHY-p8CjWr">fernando butcher/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Flexible friends</h2>
<p>The regularly invoked phrase, “the British people have spoken”, is a troubling one from the point of view of flexibility. Referendums are clunky and risky when complexity exists and when environments are volatile. The majority in that vote was relatively small and the conversation is clearly not over. New information is coming to light, new impacts and consequences are emerging that weren’t clearly known at the time. In a small business, the owner or the board would ignore such volatility at their peril. </p>
<p>The government says it is determined to respect the referendum results. And even if the legal arguments end up handing a vote to parliament before Article 50 can be triggered, MPs currently seem likely to <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-06/labour-u-turn-on-brexit-vote-as-watson-says-the-party-will-support-may-in-brexit-vote/">respect the original vote</a>. Political pressures have a habit of changing, however, and there will be likely be fierce lobbying from constituents who have rethought – that “things have changed since that vote years ago”. When customer preferences change, suppliers would be crazy to ignore those changes. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144569/original/image-20161104-27914-19nmqls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144569/original/image-20161104-27914-19nmqls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144569/original/image-20161104-27914-19nmqls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=338&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144569/original/image-20161104-27914-19nmqls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=338&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144569/original/image-20161104-27914-19nmqls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=338&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144569/original/image-20161104-27914-19nmqls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=424&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144569/original/image-20161104-27914-19nmqls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=424&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144569/original/image-20161104-27914-19nmqls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=424&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Just around the corner?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bagelmouse/17246052428/in/photolist-sgYwxw-7ZcMQJ-27a4s-7Z3QXw-JGRNC-6tZqSc-81nQds-81nL45-bDVK8y-9ETB5R-syoD3f-81nNwJ-rzocUJ-2BktM-9Fghvp-7YZ6oK-7Z72T3-7Z3iZU-7Z3k6w-JCE4p-sescLM-svSyBT-6tLNnW-7Z6EGm-sef6Ap-dpCbr-27HW9-oStrxU-7Za2VB-8ZgB1Q-ryK1vf-egVY7R-7XC9vz-6hcjQr-sew7GF-JwPDRB-nG52Ab-bXeAes-28xx5-88HbqE-6tBtwa-nJz6Ya-8ATaug-rzh3fV-efVLYW-JFinJ-rz5t2y-dtxfW3-nGretr-dpadR">RachelH_/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The longer parliamentary scrutiny runs, the closer we will be to general election. The government’s temporary monopoly on democracy will have unravelled into fears of losing power. Under similar conditions of uncertainty a small business would simply adapt and change, opening itself up to new ideas and possibilities. Committing to a decision, seeing things through, can be the right thing to do in some circumstances. In the light of opposition, tenacity can be a mark of good leadership. But that tenacity can become a fatal bloody mindedness when uncertainty or new information demands a genuine and honest revisiting of an earlier choice.</p>
<h2>Dogma tired</h2>
<p>If the UK government were a small business then we would be forced to ask if its leader and board were being more dogmatic than tenacious? Why do I ask that? Because those calling for the Brexit decision to be revisited are not all partisan opposers. New, credible, information has come to light which would inform a rethink by British people in both camps – we now know that sterling does indeed go into freefall, and that recession doesn’t appear to bite immediately. Even <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628">one of those who originally penned Article 50</a> is pointing to the reversability of the Brexit decision. </p>
<p>There is also evidence that many who voted in the referendum feel they didn’t have access to honest information at the time on which to base their free decision. Many are reported to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-backers-change-vote-remain-eu-referendum_uk_576d37f9e4b0d25711498bb5">feel duped</a> or <a href="http://www.consumerintelligence.com/articles/a-quarter-of-brexit-voters-feel-misled">manipulated</a>. One academic even claims <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-michael-dougan-leave-campaign-latest-a7115316.html">the Leave campaign behaved with criminal irresponsibility</a>. Leave campaigners are also able to point to holes in what they had labelled as the Remain camp’s “project fear”. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144573/original/image-20161104-27904-1hjg6dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144573/original/image-20161104-27904-1hjg6dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144573/original/image-20161104-27904-1hjg6dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=450&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144573/original/image-20161104-27904-1hjg6dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=450&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144573/original/image-20161104-27904-1hjg6dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=450&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144573/original/image-20161104-27904-1hjg6dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=566&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144573/original/image-20161104-27904-1hjg6dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=566&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144573/original/image-20161104-27904-1hjg6dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=566&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A pounding.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-442388344/stock-photo-pound-coins-on-financial-figures-balance-sheet-with-graph-of-decreasing-exchange-rate-of-the-pound-sterling-british-pound-gbp-currency-after-eu-referendum-result.html?src=AmWWXKE1QoSjNAgzTzoHtA-1-0">flashray/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are now new forecasts about the impact on our economy and our currency and even on the implications for UK citizens <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/09/britons-may-have-to-apply-to-visit-europe-under-eu-visa-scheme">needing visas to travel into Europe</a>. Clearly the picture could be radically changing. The notion of acting on an ever more outdated snapshot decision is akin to a business acting as if interest rates have not been cut, or relying on last year’s forecast for oil prices. Such behaviour is the road to ruin.</p>
<p>Many in government have confused strong leadership with sticking to decisions regardless of external or internal change. Such behaviour has killed many a business. It results in a failure to innovate, a hesitancy in questioning decisions that no longer make the same sense they did at the time they were made.</p>
<p>This doesn’t mean that the referendum result should be ignored or reversed. However, if we are to learn from the analogy of a fleet-footed small business which is innovative, flexible, and ultimately successful, it makes sense to review major decisions on an ongoing basis. This is what learning organisations do. Dogmatism can be corporate death. Small businesses change in order to survive. Successful ones are humble enough to let go of decisions that no longer hold true. The UK government operates in an equally changing environment, and “Brexit means Brexit” might just be one fixed decision too many.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67959/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Levy owns shares in CATS3000 Ltd</span></em></p>Would a competent entrepreneur plough on with a decision that started to look a bit dodgy?Paul Levy, Senior Researcher in Innovation Management, University of BrightonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/617112016-06-27T15:48:45Z2016-06-27T15:48:45ZScotland can't veto Brexit – but London may be unable to stop indyref2<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128346/original/image-20160627-28362-mmhipx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">&#39;Nice knowing you.&#39;</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;language=en&amp;ref_site=photo&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;use_local_boost=1&amp;autocomplete_id=&amp;searchterm=scotland%20brexit&amp;show_color_wheel=1&amp;orient=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;media_type=images&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;color=&amp;page=1&amp;inline=442815037">GrAI</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the general chaos around Brexit engulfed the UK one more dramatic headline <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/nicola-sturgeon-new-scottish-referendum-brexit">emerged</a>: “Scottish parliament could block Brexit.” </p>
<p>Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244">was asked</a> in a BBC interview on Sunday June 26 whether her parliament might withhold the consent required to pass the UK legislation required to leave the EU. Scotland faces losing its EU status despite every local authority voting to Remain in the EU referendum. “That’s got to be on the table,” she replied. “You’re not going to vote for something that is not in Scotland’s interests.” </p>
<p>Is it true? The short answer is no. Alex Salmond was quick to point this out in another BBC interview when <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/alex-salmond-scottish-parliament-cannot-block-brexit/">he stressed</a> that the “word ‘veto’ never passed her lips”. </p>
<p>The reason for possible confusion is that if Westminster decides to pass legislation that will affect issues under Holyrood jurisdiction, the Scottish parliament needs to be consulted and pass a motion of consent first. The <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/contents/enacted">Scotland Act 2016</a> passed on the back of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results">Scottish independence referendum</a> put this on a statutory footing, though it was the recognised practice anyway. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/section/2/enacted">According to</a> the Act:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish parliament. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Brexit changes will certainly fall into the category that requires this consent. The laws that tie the UK to the EU require to be repealed – most notably the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents">European Communities Act 1972</a>. These laws are intrinsic to how the Scottish parliament operates, since for example all legislation it passes has to comply with EU law. </p>
<p>Given that every Scottish local authority has voted to remain in the EU and most Holyrood politicians took the same view, Nicola Sturgeon was therefore correct to raise the prospect of the Scottish parliament withholding a “legislative consent” motion for repealing these laws.</p>
<p>Yet like most things in life, context is all. The sovereignty of Westminster on its own decisions is also guaranteed by the legislation around devolution. <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/contents">It says</a> the relevant laws do not “affect the power of the parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland”.</p>
<p>This means that power ultimately rests with Westminster. Even if the Scottish parliament registers concern or outright opposition, the laws to exit the EU could still be passed. This may be politically problematic but Westminster’s power has no statutory restriction by the Scotland Acts. So to call it a “veto” is inaccurate. </p>
<p>The issue was even put to the test during the passage of the UK’s Welfare Reform Act of 2012. The Scottish parliament <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16292327">declined</a> to grant legislative consent amid fears that the welfare cuts in the legislation would hurt the poor. It made no difference: the law was passed and fully implemented across the UK. </p>
<h2>Consent and indyref2</h2>
<p>This phantom “veto” is not the only Scottish constitutional issue to emerge from the earthquake of the EU referendum. The Scottish referendum that was once described as “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095210/Alex-Salmond-This-is-a-once-in-a-generation-opportunity-for-Scotland.html">once in a generation</a>” is now “<a href="https://theconversation.com/scottish-independence-back-in-play-after-brexit-shock-with-a-note-of-caution-61457">highly likely</a>” to be repeated before the UK’s Brexit negotiations conclude, according to Sturgeon. </p>
<p>The legal issues around this so-called “indyref2” (second independence referendum) are not straightforward, however. The first referendum of September 2014 only came about following the <a href="http://www.gov.scot/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence">Edinburgh Agreement</a> between the Scottish and UK government. Westminster had to temporarily transfer powers to the Scottish parliament to run the referendum in a move that expired on December 31 2014.</p>
<p>The devolution legislation is ambiguous at best on Holyrood’s power to run an independence referendum of its own. The constitution is a reserved matter and by signing the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish government seemed to concede that Westminster approval is necessary.</p>
<p>If Westminster blocked a future referendum it would therefore have a legal basis to do so. Indeed prior to Brexit, this was the position of David Cameron, the prime minister. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/27/david-cameron-rule-out-second-scottish-independence-referendum">He said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think it is important that a referendum is legal and properly constituted and that is what we had, and it was decisive, so I do not see the need for another one.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yet the question is as much political as legal. The idea of Westminster rejecting a referendum in the face of a deepening European constitutional crisis and contrary to the wishes of the Scottish government seems unlikely. The Scottish parliament would probably carry on regardless, even if it creates a legal minefield. The general public’s crash course in constitutional law may run for some time to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61711/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick McKerrell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If Holyrood is ultimately answerable to Westminster, Westminster is ultimately answerable to realpolitik.Nick McKerrell, Lecturer in Law, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/616132016-06-27T10:04:50Z2016-06-27T10:04:50ZBrexit is not good news for the NHS – here's why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128066/original/image-20160624-28373-1yh2lsq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Would monsieur like to pay by Visa or Mastercard?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;language=en&amp;ref_site=photo&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;use_local_boost=1&amp;autocomplete_id=&amp;search_tracking_id=a-ny7j1D_A49UUCE4wJi7w&amp;searchterm=run%20down%20hospital&amp;show_color_wheel=1&amp;orient=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;media_type=images&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;color=&amp;page=1&amp;inline=101345578">Blend Images/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The run up to the Brexit referendum saw Leave campaigners such as Boris Johnson claiming that uncontrolled immigration puts “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36058513">unsustainable pressure on our vital public services</a>” including the NHS. But the evidence suggests that people from abroad are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-migrants-and-the-nhs-60908">not heavy users</a> of NHS services and that the costs of their care can be recovered anyway. </p>
<p>Now that the UK has decided to leave the EU, there are likely to be adverse impacts for the NHS. UK residents are likely to suffer the consequences, mainly because the NHS will struggle to deliver the level of care to which we have been accustomed. There are three potential fallouts. First, UK residents may have to pay more if they need treatment while on holiday in Europe. Second, it will be more difficult to recruit NHS staff. Third, the NHS is less likely to receive the funding it needs.</p>
<p>Exiting the EU might mean that we have to give up the <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcareabroad/EHIC/Pages/about-the-ehic.aspx">European Health Insurance Card</a>. If we fall ill while on holiday on the continent, the EHIC gives us the right to receive medically necessary healthcare. Treatment should be provided to UK holiday-makers just as it would be to a resident of the country they’re visiting. And it should be provided at a reduced cost or for free, as it would be under the NHS. The country that provides the treatment then sends a bill to the UK to recover the costs of treatment. And the UK does the same for holiday-makers that use the NHS while here. The EHIC means that we don’t have to worry about these financial arrangements. But by leaving the EU, we might have to worry. </p>
<p>If we have to give up our EHICs, the price of holiday insurance will increase to cover the risk of needing treatment while abroad, we’ll have to claim for the costs of care we receive and we might have to pay part of these costs ourselves. People who go on holiday without insurance will have to pay the full price themselves.</p>
<p>But we might be able to hang onto our EHICs. The arrangements currently apply to other countries in the European Economic Area and Switzerland. So if the UK becomes an EEA member, EHICs may be part of the package. This should be a key element of our negotiated settlement.</p>
<h2>Foreign staff keeps NHS going</h2>
<p>The NHS is more reliant on foreign-trained staff than are other <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-migrants-and-the-nhs-60908">EU countries</a> – 11% of doctors and 4% of nurses working in the NHS are from other EEA countries, and recruitment from these countries has increased over the last few years because the Home Office has made it more difficult to recruit from <a href="http://www.health.org.uk/blog/does-nhs-workforce-planning-have-be-way">outside the EEA</a>. By exiting the EU, the costs of recruiting staff from the continent will increase further and staff will find it less appealing to move to the UK for work. </p>
<p>The NHS will have to respond in two ways. First, it will be necessary to train more staff in the UK. But our historical record in training sufficient NHS staff has been <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/nhs-staff-numbers-15-16/">poor</a>, and the NHS is already struggling with staff shortages. Medical training takes seven years and nursing training takes three years, so it won’t be possible to fill a widening staffing gap with home-trained recruits any time soon. </p>
<p>The second option is to increase wages, so as to retain existing staff and to attract back to the NHS those that have left to work elsewhere. There has been <a href="http://www.hsj.co.uk/comment/ways-to-reduce-the-increasing-nhs-pay-bill-remain-elusive/5073259.fullarticle">low growth in NHS wages</a> over the last few years. This has made permanent NHS contracts less attractive than agency or locum work, which helps explain why <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/nhs-agency-staff-spending/">agency costs have been rising</a>. But the government is hoping to restrain NHS wage growth to just <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/fyfv-tech-note-090516.pdf">1% a year to 2019/20</a>, well below forecasts for earnings growth in the <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/wage-growth/forecast">economy as a whole</a>. Continued wage restraint is going to make it more difficult to retain existing staff and to attract new people into the profession. </p>
<h2>Recession on the way</h2>
<p>But without wage restraint the NHS is going to struggle to balance the books. Some projections suggest the NHS budget needs to increase by an <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-the-nhs-really-face-a-30-billion-funding-gap-57251">extra £30 billion</a> in 2020-21 compared with 2015-16. But the government has promised only an <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-you-think-the-nhs-is-going-to-receive-an-extra-8-4-billion-think-again-58333">extra £4.5 billion</a>. But even this extra funding will be under threat if, as <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68c61094-3870-11e6-a780-b48ed7b6126f.html#axzz4CUhWYKUp">most analyses suggest</a>, the UK suffers a short-term economic hit as a result of Brexit. A deeper recession will reduce tax receipts and, consequently, the money available to be spent on the NHS.</p>
<p>This funding gap is unlikely to plugged from our current EU contribution. The Brexiters “promise” to spend an extra £350m a week on the NHS instead of the EU was withdrawn within an hour of the referendum results being <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-admits-wont-extra-8271594">announced</a>. </p>
<p>Older people are more likely to suffer the consequences of NHS underfunding and staff shortages, as they are also most likely to use the NHS. Ironically, the elderly were also most <a href="http://www.politico.eu/article/britains-youth-voted-remain-leave-eu-brexit-referendum-stats/">likely to vote</a> for Brexit.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61613/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="double-bordered">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Street has recived project funding from the National Institute of Health Research, the Department of Health&#39;s Policy Research Programme, and the European Union. The views expressed are his own.
</span></em></p>Thanks to Brexit the NHS will be under-funded and short-staffed. Also, you might not receive free emergency healthcare if you travel to Europe.Andrew Street, Professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/612622016-06-22T14:56:33Z2016-06-22T14:56:33ZPolls close: what you need to know about referendum night<p><em>The polling stations have closed in Britain’s big decision on whether to leave or remain in the European Union. Here’s what you need to know about the count now taking place. Conversation editors are updating this article through the night of June 23 and morning of June 24.</em></p>
<h2>When might we expect a result?</h2>
<p>If the vote is as close as opinion polls suggest, we’ll be unlikely to get an official result before 8am UK time on Friday. Counting is taking place overnight. The first results were from 11pm onwards but around half will not be declared until after 4am. If counting proceeds efficiently and one side has built up a clear lead, it may be possible to project the outcome accurately by around 5am. </p>
<h2>Will there be an exit poll?</h2>
<p>There is no official exit poll. Polling companies have conducted referendum day polling but these are <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-do-you-read-an-election-poll-41204">not exit polls</a>. It is understood exit polls have been <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/57ce9e5a-271d-11e6-8ba3-cdd781d02d89.html#axzz4C3mTKl2V">commissioned by hedge funds</a> looking to make financial gains in international currency markets. These exit polls will not be published and their likely reliability has been questioned. Attempts to infer the results from movements in foreign exchange trading may be misleading. </p>
<p>Exit polls at general elections are based on measuring changes in support for parties from the previous election in a large number of carefully chosen polling districts. It is impossible to replicate this approach for a one-off electoral event such as a referendum.</p>
<h2>Is counting the same as in a UK general election?</h2>
<p>There are a few differences to how counts take place at a British general election. Counting is happening in 382 counting area (380 local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, plus Northern Ireland as a whole, and also Gibraltar) rather than in 650 parliamentary constituencies.</p>
<p>Unlike a general election, what matters is not so much who wins in each counting area but how many votes are secured by the rival campaigns along the way. The totals for Leave and Remain will be aggregated at a regional level and declarations made by regional counting officers. Once all the regional counts are complete, the UK result will be announced from Manchester by Jenny Watson, chair of the Electoral Commission.</p>
<h2>Will results be announced along the way?</h2>
<p>Yes, each of the 382 counting areas are announcing their results. These local results will be relayed by the broadcasters – but it will be difficult to keep up once they start to come in thick and fast at around 3am. It should also be possible to track local results via council websites and Twitter feeds. There will also be rumours and speculation about local outcomes circulating on social media. They should be treated with a degree of caution in advance of official declarations. </p>
<h2>Could any areas give an indication of the result?</h2>
<p>Early results will require careful interpretation. Metropolitan areas outside London with very large electorates, notably Birmingham and Leeds but also Sheffield, Liverpool and Manchester, could prove crucial and are expected to declare from 4am to 5am.</p>
<p>For Remain, low margins of victory or low turnouts in these cities could spell very bad news. If the totals remain close at 6am, when Cornwall (circa 400,000 electors) is due to declare, a clear lead for either side on a relatively high turnout may suggest which way the wind is blowing. </p>
<h2>Key results to look out for?</h2>
<p>Unlike a general election, there are no “safe” and “marginal” seats. However, the socio-demographic make-up of each counting area and past support for UKIP are expected to provide a <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/can-we-really-not-predict-who-will-vote-for-brexit-and-where/">strong indication of how individual areas will vote</a>. On this basis, early results from Scotland and London could be seen as safe for Remain. Conversely, parts of the east coast such as Great Yarmouth, North Norfolk, Boston and South Holland should be safe territory for Leave.</p>
<p>Some counting areas come close to representing the socio-demographics of the country in microcosm. Swindon, often regarded as a barometer town in politics, is expected to declare at around 1am. A clear lead for either side here could be indicative of a wider pattern.</p>
<h2>What amounts to a decisive victory?</h2>
<p>Given how tight the polls have been, a ten-point margin of victory (for example, 55% to 45%) will almost certainly be interpreted as decisive. However, for the issue to be considered settled, at least in the short term, a margin of victory for Remain over Leave would have to be at least 60% to 40%. A narrow victory for Leave, for example 51% to 49%, could be one of the most problematic outcomes from a political perspective, particularly if secured on the back of a relatively low turnout.</p>
<h2>What amounts to a close result?</h2>
<p>Anything within the margins of 47:53 either way will probably be seen as close and the polls suggest that such an outcome is clearly possible. Ultimately, the vote can be won by a margin of just one vote. That is the nature of a referendum.</p>
<p>Recounts can be requested in individual counting areas but only prior to official declarations being made. There is no legal provision for a national recount. The only means of challenging the result will be via <a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/150499/Challenging-elections-in-the-UK.pdf">judicial review</a>.</p>
<h2>Should I stay up for the result or go to bed?</h2>
<p>Staying up until breakfast time for the official result is possibly going to be the preserve of the political obsessive. Assuming the opinion polls are broadly correct (admittedly a big assumption after the last general election) and the vote is as close as expected, the real excitement is likely to be from 5am onwards, at which point it may be possible for broadcasters to project a winner.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61262/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Wilks-Heeg has previously received funding for research or consultancy on electoral matters from the UK Electoral Commission and the UK Cabinet Office. He is the Chair of Democratic Audit, an independent research organisation based at the London School of Economics which monitors the health of democracy in the UK.</span></em></p>How will the votes be counted? When will we know the result? Stuart Wilks-Heeg has all the answers.Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Head of Politics, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/613872016-06-22T10:39:56Z2016-06-22T10:39:56ZIf Scotland blocks England from Brexit, what happens next?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127604/original/image-20160621-12998-zlao86.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;language=en&amp;ref_site=photo&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;use_local_boost=1&amp;autocomplete_id=&amp;search_tracking_id=52bZPhQTsWgzgZdp6c6YCA&amp;searchterm=scotland%20fights%20england&amp;show_color_wheel=1&amp;orient=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;media_type=images&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;color=&amp;page=1&amp;inline=128342582">Aquir</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scottish voters <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3743/The-Tinman-referendum-the-EU-debate-in-Scotland-is-lacking-heart.aspx">don’t regard</a> the EU referendum with the same importance as the independence vote of 2014. No one is suggesting Scottish turnout will be anywhere near <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1338396/astonishing-turnout-breaks-uk-voting-records">the 85%</a> of that poll – more likely 20 points below. Yet the EU referendum could have fascinating implications for Scotland. </p>
<p>All polls <a href="http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/">indicate</a> a close result across the UK, but a very clear Remain vote <a href="http://whatscotlandthinks.org/opinion-polls">in Scotland</a> (and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36553552">Northern Ireland</a>). This leaves three realistic scenarios. Scotland could vote to stay in while the UK votes to leave – thanks to England. The UK could vote to stay in by a very narrow margin, with a Scottish Remain majority effectively blocking a narrow English vote to leave. Or the UK could vote Remain, with both England and Scotland in favour.</p>
<p>Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, and her senior SNP colleagues have <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32222806">long said</a> Scotland being forced from the EU against its will would be the kind of “material change” that would justify a second independence referendum. But would they want to? The first minister has also <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/20/nicola-sturgeon-snp-manifesto-second-independence-vote">openly stated</a> the Scottish government would only call for a referendum if public opinion indicates a significant uplift from the 45% Yes vote of 2014 – probably towards about 60%. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127605/original/image-20160621-13036-ar21ba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127605/original/image-20160621-13036-ar21ba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127605/original/image-20160621-13036-ar21ba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=972&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127605/original/image-20160621-13036-ar21ba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=972&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127605/original/image-20160621-13036-ar21ba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=972&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127605/original/image-20160621-13036-ar21ba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1222&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127605/original/image-20160621-13036-ar21ba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1222&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127605/original/image-20160621-13036-ar21ba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1222&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sturge seeks surge.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;language=en&amp;ref_site=photo&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;use_local_boost=1&amp;autocomplete_id=&amp;search_tracking_id=KM4Bme_AEERjYPKtdb6X2g&amp;searchterm=nicola%20sturgeon&amp;show_color_wheel=1&amp;orient=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;media_type=images&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;color=&amp;page=1&amp;inline=378245470">Twocoms</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A <a href="http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/blog/scottish-referendum-study">large number</a> of middle-class Scots voted No because of the economic uncertainty of independence. In the event of a Brexit vote, the same rationale may make them lean the other way if they thought an independent Scotland could remain in the EU. Current EU referendum polling <a href="http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/">certainly indicates</a> the better off in Scotland are more likely to vote Remain. On the other hand, the fact that Scottish voters see the EU referendum as less important than the independence referendum suggests the EU result may not alter their opinion about Scottish independence.</p>
<p>Either way, the Scottish government is likely to be cautious. Since economic certainty is important for these swing voters, it may be a case of seeing what happens. The UK’s exit negotiations with the EU may not run smoothly – the EU may wish to signal to the likes of the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3632832/Support-EU-plummets-Europe-wake-migrant-crisis-French-hate-Britain-survey-reveals-ahead-Brexit-vote.html">eurosceptic French</a> that the exit path carries costs. That could boost support for independence among these middle class Scots, though how voters react to uncertainty is itself uncertain. </p>
<p>If so, we would then probably see debates about an independent Scotland’s relationship to the remainder of the UK’s “single market” and its currency – indeed, Sturgeon has <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/nicola-sturgeon-euro-discussion-possible-in-event-of-brexit-1-4160424">already indicated</a> there would be discussions about Scotland joining the eurozone in the event of a Brexit. Many would want to know how welcoming the EU would be to an independent Scotland and whether fast-track entry would be possible. </p>
<p>Even if the SNP did feel there was the momentum for another “indyref”, bear in mind the power to hold a legally secure referendum is reserved to Westminster. In this UK Leave/Scotland Remain scenario, would it authorise another vote? My guess is it would depend on the strength of feeling. David Cameron may well resist one, but a post-Brexit leader might take a different view, perhaps in a bid to shelve independence for a generation. But they might play hardball with timing, the nature of the question and so forth. </p>
<h2>The ‘Scotland blocks Brexit’ scenario</h2>
<p>On one level there ought to be no problem with our second scenario. Leading Brexiters presented themselves as strongly British unionists during both referendum campaigns, so they shouldn’t complain if the UK has voted as the UK. Yet it is still easy to imagine the idea of Scotland obstructing the will of England becoming a major political flashpoint. </p>
<p>How it played out would depend on whether David Cameron was prime minister. If he remained there would be little immediate change, yet it would be an era of even more political positioning and posturing than now. Cameron would probably face rebellions on European issues from pro-Brexit Tories similar to <a href="http://www.brugesgroup.com/images/media_centre/papers/TheDispossessedtheBastards.pdf">John Major’s premiership post-Maastricht</a>. He would be relying on opposition support for such votes, not least perhaps from the SNP voting bloc. </p>
<p>This could exacerbate the sense of injustice among English nationalists already decrying the EU referendum as a European version of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/17/what-is-west-lothian-question">West Lothian question</a> (the problem of Scottish MPs potentially holding the casting vote at Westminster on purely English issues). </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127608/original/image-20160621-12995-16xo55a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127608/original/image-20160621-12995-16xo55a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127608/original/image-20160621-12995-16xo55a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=399&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127608/original/image-20160621-12995-16xo55a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=399&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127608/original/image-20160621-12995-16xo55a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=399&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127608/original/image-20160621-12995-16xo55a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=501&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127608/original/image-20160621-12995-16xo55a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=501&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127608/original/image-20160621-12995-16xo55a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=501&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">None shall pass.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;language=en&amp;ref_site=photo&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;use_local_boost=1&amp;autocomplete_id=&amp;search_tracking_id=ro-iczTMnJ4CiEIbXWYFfA&amp;searchterm=highland%20cow%20on%20the%20road&amp;show_color_wheel=1&amp;orient=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;media_type=images&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;color=&amp;page=1&amp;inline=407208217">Rolf G Wackenburg</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The situation could become more dangerous when the prime minister steps down. The new leader in a party whose root and branch is predominantly pro-Brexit would likely tack towards English nationalism – as Cameron <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/david-cameron-devolution-revolution-uk-scotland-vote">himself attempted</a> immediately after the Scottish independence referendum (his plan for English votes for English laws has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35295404">led to</a> some procedural changes in the Commons). </p>
<p>The substance of this nationalism would matter. Would it broadly focus on tolerance, democracy and respect for diversity? Or would it be more exclusionary and self-assertive, responding to what it saw as the threats to English society? If it were more the latter that might be distinctly unwelcome in Scotland, and might have implications for independence support. </p>
<p>On the other hand, it is not impossible to imagine an English nationalist UK government paying less attention to the devolved nations – particularly Scotland, where there are so few Tory MPs and the financial settlement with Westminster has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/23/scottish-uk-governments-agree-holyrood-funding-deal">already been agreed</a> until 2020. The Brexiters have barely addressed the Scottish question during the referendum, so we’re really in unknown territory. </p>
<p>Whatever the case, it would be unwise to assume that two referendum victories for Cameron would mean politics would return to the pre-2014 days. You only need look at the Scottish referendum to see that politics rarely plays out this way. Even if the vote is Remain both north and south of the Scotland-England border, there will be a Tory leadership election relatively soon and the party will have substantial divisions to heal following all the “blue on blue” hostility of the EU referendum. </p>
<p>A Brexit leader such as Boris Johnson as prime minister while the Scottish nationalists continue to look for another independence opportunity, would certainly mean interesting times. The outcome of the vote on June 23 could well be an important staging post to whatever happens between England and Scotland next.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61387/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Duncan McTavish does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Boris could be about to discover a taste for Scottish nationalism.Duncan McTavish, Professor of Public Policy and Management, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/614022016-06-22T10:28:52Z2016-06-22T10:28:52ZSound and furry in #EURef Twitter war<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127609/original/image-20160621-13002-yr5mcs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter/Lilian Edwards</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Twitter was always going to be a major battleground in the EU referendum but the sheer number of hashtags being used in the debate has been surprising.</p>
<p>Both sides are linguistically inventive: for every pro-Leave hashtag, there’s a pro-Remain equivalent. Virtually all synonyms of “Remain” and “Leave” – from #britin and #britexit to #votin and #voteout – have been used. There’s even the somewhat clunky #brout and #brin, as well as whimsical phrases like #brexitandchill and #remainandgain.</p>
<p>Not all hashtags trend, of course. In fact, the vast majority don’t. To measure resonance, the content of tweets must be taken into consideration; it is not just a numbers game. Hashtags aren’t always used as a supportive device – a tweet that includes #GrassrootsOut, for example, might not necessarily endorse the movement.</p>
<p>To untangle the question of success, I have been gathering tweets containing 250 referendum-relevant hashtags since March 10. I’ve analysed the first three months of data from what has already become a collection of 10m tweets. </p>
<p>While Brexiters appear to be winning on <a href="https://theconversation.com/nofilter-debate-brexit-campaigners-dominate-on-instagram-59933">Instagram</a>, it’s the Remainers who seem to be running Twitter. The Brexiters are making a lot of noise – but that doesn’t necessarily amount to winning the war. </p>
<h2>Hashtags and hijacks</h2>
<p>From a pure numbers perspective, the Leave campaigners are in the lead. The most popular hashtag in my dataset is #Brexit, which is present in more than 2.5m tweets (roughly 33% of the data up until June 10).</p>
<p>Although this hashtag is arguably neutral – since it doesn’t express any particular sentiment about leaving the EU – it is being used far more actively by the Leave camp, who did, after all, coin the term. Almost two-thirds of tweets that contain it support a British exit from the EU.</p>
<p>The second most popular hashtag is #VoteLeave (1.2m). The more obviously neutral #EURef comes in third (873,000), followed by #StrongerIn (531,000).</p>
<p>Use of #EURef is roughly evenly split among Leave, Remain, and neutral (with Leave and neutral being slightly more dominant).</p>
<p>Pro-Leave groups are also more actively subverting pro-Remain hashtags than the other way round – almost 20% of tweets containing #StrongerIn express pro-Leave sentiment, whereas only 4% of tweets containing #VoteLeave support remaining in the EU.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127572/original/image-20160621-13012-3hzkxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127572/original/image-20160621-13012-3hzkxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127572/original/image-20160621-13012-3hzkxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=276&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127572/original/image-20160621-13012-3hzkxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=276&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127572/original/image-20160621-13012-3hzkxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=276&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127572/original/image-20160621-13012-3hzkxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=346&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127572/original/image-20160621-13012-3hzkxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=346&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127572/original/image-20160621-13012-3hzkxw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=346&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although #VoteLeave is more than twice as frequently used as #StrongerIn, half of the top 20 hashtags are pro-Remain. This indicates that a number of pro-Remain groups are quite active in the Twittersphere. Moreover, #Remain is two-and-a-half times more popular than #Leave. </p>
<h2>Users or bots?</h2>
<p>A closer scrutiny of the profiles of the top 20 users reveals that 85% are pro-Leave. All have tweeted at least 5,500 times and most of these tweets are retweets. According to <a href="http://truthy.indiana.edu/botornot/">the Truthy project’s Bot or Not</a>, almost all are at least 40% likely to be a robot. They may be loud, but they don’t seem to be producing much original content.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127573/original/image-20160621-13012-1w3oy2f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127573/original/image-20160621-13012-1w3oy2f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127573/original/image-20160621-13012-1w3oy2f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=322&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127573/original/image-20160621-13012-1w3oy2f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=322&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127573/original/image-20160621-13012-1w3oy2f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=322&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127573/original/image-20160621-13012-1w3oy2f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=405&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127573/original/image-20160621-13012-1w3oy2f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=405&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127573/original/image-20160621-13012-1w3oy2f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=405&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Celebrity support</h2>
<p>Prominent individuals and brands on Twitter (those who have verified accounts) strongly favour #Brexit and #EURef over other hashtags. This might indicate that they prefer to take a more overtly neutral stance. Although, as noted above, #Brexit is being used far more actively by the Leave camp.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127574/original/image-20160621-12995-1msafdj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127574/original/image-20160621-12995-1msafdj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127574/original/image-20160621-12995-1msafdj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=334&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127574/original/image-20160621-12995-1msafdj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=334&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127574/original/image-20160621-12995-1msafdj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=334&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127574/original/image-20160621-12995-1msafdj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=420&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127574/original/image-20160621-12995-1msafdj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=420&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127574/original/image-20160621-12995-1msafdj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=420&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Most popular content</h2>
<p>Remain campaigners are winning the Twitter war on one very important front. They are responsible for 60-70% of the ten most shared and liked tweets in my dataset (eight tweets appear on both lists). None of the top ten liked tweets and only one of the top ten shared tweets is pro-Leave.</p>
<p>The most shared and liked EU referendum tweet features a gif of a man trying to set fire to an EU flag, only to find that it won’t catch light – because it has been produced according to European safety rules.</p>
<div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props='{"tweetId":"737703963252793345"}'></div>
<p>Another of the most popular tweets comes from pro-Remain actor Stephen Mangan, who imagines a meeting of eurosceptic minds. His tweet is a good example of how a hashtag (in this case #Brexit) can be subverted by people who support the opposite of what it implies.</p>
<div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props='{"tweetId":"728481934255493120"}'></div>
<p>So who is winning the Twitter hashtag war? Although Leave campaigners are more vocal, Remain campaigners are crafting more compelling content. In the Twittersphere, humour and wit prevail and are more persuasive than anger or statistics.</p>
<p>Cat pictures, of course, are the epitome of this – so it’s no surprise that <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23CatsAgainstBrexit&amp;src=tyah">#CatsAgainstBrexit</a> has become an instant viral success in the final days of the campaign.</p>
<div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props='{"tweetId":"744658491386757124"}'></div>
<p>Since June 18, thousands of people like Vix Leyton have shared pictures of their cats, explaining the implications of leaving the EU for the feline community. There is of course an emerging counter-movement of pro-Brexit pets (#PetsforBrexit, #PetsforBritain).</p>
<p>The bottom line with Twitter is that as political as it can be, ultimately people just want to be entertained. And where cats are involved, Remain is the clear winner.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61402/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yin Yin Lu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Leavers are very active but remainers have secured some key victories – even before #catsagainstbrexit turned up.Yin Yin Lu, DPhil Candidate (Information, Communication, and the Social Sciences), University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/613892016-06-21T22:40:04Z2016-06-21T22:40:04ZBBC's grand EU debate was fierce – and Ruth Davidson won it for Remain<p>A much-heralded debate hosted by the BBC in London saw both sides in the European Union referendum campaign digging in their heels and hammering home core arguments, focusing on the economy, immigration and sovereignty. </p>
<p>With polling day on Thursday, each side put forward a strong team. For the Leave camp, former London mayor Boris Johnson was the star turn, supported by MPs Andrea Leadsom and Gisela Stuart. Representing Remain were two leading British politicians who scored electoral successes recently – Ruth Davidson, leader of the Conservatives in Scotland, and Sadiq Khan, Labour’s new London mayor. The third figure was Frances O'Grady, leader of the TUC, speaking, as she said, for the workers of Britain.</p>
<p>The Leave team repeated the mantra that Britain needed to “take back control”, a phrase heard again and again during these two hours, and indeed, over the past few months. It focused on the possibility of <a href="https://theconversation.com/never-mind-brexit-scaremongering-turkey-is-a-long-way-from-joining-the-eu-58958">Turkey joining the EU</a> and worries about democratic accountability. Those who supported the Leave campaign before the debate will have remained committed to their side with this well-worn rhetoric. Leadsom and Stuart repeatedly described themselves as “mothers and grandmothers”, enabling Ruth Davidson to score one of the few laughs of the evening by pointing out that the Remain camp has just as many mothers and grandmothers which they could call upon – perhaps implying that they just don’t go on about it quite as much as Stuart.</p>
<p>The Remainers were the surprise package of the night. The campaign for staying in the EU has allowed itself to look lacklustre during this campaign and has struggled to sell its more complex economic and immigration arguments. This was not a problem during this debate. The Remain camp has clearly had a shot in the arm, typified particularly by the performances of Davidson and Khan. </p>
<p>While O'Grady was able to speak with authority about workers and their rights, Davidson and Khan repeatedly hammered the Leave campaign, accusing them of lying and misleading voters. They demanded detailed plans on the future, with Khan reminding Johnson that “slogans aren’t policies”. Khan even hit back at accusations that he represented “project fear” by calling the Leave campaign “project hate”, referring to its immigration rhetoric and focusing on what he believed were inaccuracies in the material produced by the Leave campaign.</p>
<p>The Leave team was also blindsided by a question about a <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-dodges-question-about-leave-campaign-accepting-600000-donation-from-former-bnp-member-a7094191.html">£600,000 donation</a> from a former BNP supporter. </p>
<p>By the time the concluding statements were made, Johnson had drawn a standing ovation from some quarters of the hall for his attempt at rousing conclusion suggesting that Thursday would be Britain’s Independence Day. </p>
<p>However, there is no doubt that the real star was Davidson. She highlighted issues she believed were not being presented accurately and demanded justification of key claims from the Leave campaign. Fresh from the Scottish parliamentary election campaign, she demonstrated her ability to fight for what she believes and to communicate in a way that is both engaging and straightforward.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61389/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Victoria Honeyman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It was a last chance to answer those all important questions. But the Leave campaign failed to deliver.Victoria Honeyman, Lecturer in British Politics, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/613902016-06-21T16:50:43Z2016-06-21T16:50:43ZWhat would Brexit mean for the special relationship? Nothing good<p>In reality, the “special relationship” between the US and the UK is a bit of a myth. For many Americans, the UK – identified as “England” – means the Queen, Monty Python, and the Beatles (or One Direction, depending on your age).</p>
<p>But it has been a useful myth, on both sides of the Atlantic. Even if the UK needs the idea of a partnership far more than the US does, World War II, the Cold War and Churchill’s invocation of “fraternal association” have fostered lasting institutional bonds. A “first-among-equals” approach exists between diplomatic services, militaries, intelligence agencies and officials overseeing economies and finance.</p>
<p>Now another myth about the US and the UK is being spread, but this one has no benefit. Indeed, it could be quite damaging. The myth comes courtesy of the campaign for Britain to leave the EU. It is that, freed from its shackles, Britain would again be able to embrace the transatlantic duopoly and lead the world.</p>
<p>There is no need to worry about any effect on NATO because the British and American militaries will maintain security. The UK, the “world’s fifth-largest economy” in the repeated chants of Leave, will flourish by turning to the US as a wide-open market.</p>
<p>The former mayor of London and Leave campaigner, Boris Johnson, said in late April: “We can thrive as never before – and therefore be even better and more valuable allies of the United States.”</p>
<p>He’s wrong. </p>
<p>Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the US president, Barack Obama, instead. Or consider the words of the heads of those institutions that have been the bedrock of the “special relationship” – US military commanders, directors of intelligence service, past and present Treasury officials, and think tanks across the political spectrum.</p>
<h2>Better together</h2>
<p>The fallacy that links both the Churchillian and Brexit versions of the “special relationship” is that the US-UK alliance is beyond any other ties.</p>
<p>Washington has never viewed the relationship as exceptional, though. It has always been part of a broader US conception of working with Europe – from the fight to reclaim the continent from Nazi Germany to the stand against Soviet Communism.</p>
<p>As the US has widened its vision in the changing world after 1945 – building relations with Asia, wrestling with the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East and building global financial structures – the approach to Europe has been increasingly important. </p>
<p>Put bluntly, there are only economic downsides if the US restricts its business, trade, and investment to UK-first. There is no military strategy that can rest on a US-UK footing, rather than US-Europe. The myths of a shared culture are a bit of fun, but they are no substitute for power politics and power economics.</p>
<p>That was the blunt message from Obama when he visited London in April when he said: “Our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done”. The UK, he warned, would be at “the back of the queue” if it left that bloc.</p>
<p>While Britain will remain an attractive centre for finance even outside the EU, it should not take its global primacy for granted when it is no longer the gateway to Europe.</p>
<p>The US military and State Department added its voice with a <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dont-vote-for-brexit-us-defence-chiefs-warn-2nncnhplw">letter from 13 former national security officials</a>, including former secretary of state Madeleine Albright: with Brexit, Britain’s “place and influence in the world would be diminished and Europe would be dangerously weakened”.</p>
<p>Strobe Talbott, a former high-level State Department official, added in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/opinion/brexits-threattothe-special-relationship.html">The New York Times</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[Our] partnership is at an inflection point….The chances of the European Union’s pulling together, regaining its self-confidence, fixing its flaws and meeting the challenges are far greater if the United States doubles down on its own big bet on European unity as a vital national interest. Precisely because of the special relationship, it is vital that Britain’s leaders lean in to the cause and not opt out.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Apart from Donald Trump – more about him later – the verdict is unanimous: the US-UK relationship rests on continued British membership of the EU.</p>
<h2>Dismissing inconvenient truths</h2>
<p>I suspect that the shrewder proponents of Brexit realise this. But of course, to acknowledge the real world would damage their campaign.</p>
<p>So instead they try diversionary tactics. Ignoring the key American institutions, Nigel Farage blithely dismissed Obama: “[He] won’t be in office by the time we’re out of the EU post-referendum”.</p>
<p>Johnson went further, with a personal attack on Obama. Repeating a lie that the president had <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-winston-churchill-bust-oval-office-britain">removed a bust of Winston Churchill</a> from the oval office, he said this “part-Kenyan” had an “ancestral dislike of the British empire”.</p>
<p>Others suggest the US can’t have an opinion on UK immigration until it happily <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/19/liam-fox-barack-obama-keep-out-eu-referendum-debate">opens its border with Mexico</a>.</p>
<p>None of this gets to the central point about the US conception of Britain’s place in Europe. Nor has any Brexit campaigner come to grips with the forthright statements from America’s diplomatic, economic, and military leaders.</p>
<p>But not getting to the point is the point. Brexiters don’t want the potential damage to sink in before the people vote. </p>
<h2>Wishing on a Trump</h2>
<p>So Brexit’s hope rests on Donald Trump – who just happens to be visiting Scotland the day before the vote.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton shares Obama’s vision of UK-European relations. Her message is of continuity in economic, political, and security relations.</p>
<p>But with Trump, who knows? In early May, he said it was his “feeling” that Britain should <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/05/donald-trump-brexit-uk-leaving-european-union">leave the EU</a>, citing the issue of migration as “a horrible thing for Europe”. </p>
<p>Asked a month later about Brexit, the Republican candidate did not appear to understand the term. However, when pressed: “The Brits leaving the EU?”, he responded, “Oh yeah, I think they should leave.”</p>
<p>And this week Trump repeated: “I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy”.</p>
<p>Those views are not exactly well-formed. They do not even go beyond Trump’s “personal” response. But maybe, just maybe, for the Leave camp, they offer hope that the special relationship can survive outside the EU.</p>
<p>That is a pretty desperate hope. The “whole strength” of the US-UK relationship rests not on a single, unpredictable man but on the steadier foundation of institutional ties built up over 75 years. If a President Trump tries to whisk Brexit Britain towards a Utopian horizon, he will probably be brought to earth by all those officials who have seen where power and mutual benefit actually reside.</p>
<p>That place for both Washington and London is with and within Europe – not outside it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61390/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Lucas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The US doesn't love the UK enough to prioritise it over a massive trading bloc like the EU.Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/611802016-06-20T09:16:41Z2016-06-20T09:16:41ZFact Check: do new EU rules make it impossible to renationalise railways?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126982/original/image-20160616-15117-1cn52ar.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No fat controller required.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/trueidentity/10500037986/in/photolist-gZRrtG-R6Xf-bagbT-ns21mM-7iDvkq-8hixt1-5aftjw-oBJqBr-anyXeN-R7pX-p52d36-e4N1da-a1Tjjc-s452zt-cABeS-uaokzN-4RiRgB-APMdR-5pcD2Z-fsozGm-6BJP81-pd8xh-9YxBEZ-nfLvAW-3QZJ9p-cGA5dS-4RLbsE-f6HvAF-bzby3v-bjXzDH-4qRbQw-7hD65-djnV3N-9iYKBi-ok1yX5-f2WtLe-6Mxar7-iMZ7D5-dU3F38-mfdQ39-4ge11n-7Q1zAP-FLdzUV-9iYKYc-7iDv3L-KWEN9-7AYL1-dmuGWD-5e3iJX-97mGyP">UsmanMassod</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>We’re in a situation where the EU through the fourth railway package is promoting further privatisation and will prevent us from renationalising our railways.</em></p>
<p><strong>Mick Cash, general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, on BBC Radio 4’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07cwwd9#play">Today programme</a></strong></p>
<p>The pending changes to EU rail regulation, known as the <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/4th-railway-package/">fourth railway package</a>, don’t require member states to privatise any aspect of their rail networks. Neither do they require any member to break up its national operator. </p>
<p>There was an initial proposal for rail infrastructure and services to be split into separate organisations, which would have meant breaking up national operators, but the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, <a href="http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/blogs/tony-berkeley/germany-rewrites-the-fourth-railway-package.html">directly intervened</a> and it was dropped. In the UK this was in any case only relevant to Northern Ireland – mainland Britain has only a state-owned infrastructure operator in Network Rail. Service operators since the 1990s have mostly been in private hands (with the exception of a couple of interim periods on the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intercity-east-coast-rail-franchise-agreement">East Coast</a> and <a href="https://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/about-us/about-southeastern/">South Eastern</a> franchises). </p>
<p>What the package does propose is to open up each country’s rail network to competition and ultimately create a single European market in rail services. The three main components of the changes, which are currently awaiting European parliament approval, are that each member state liberalises passenger services; develops common operating standards for both trains and the workforce and has an independent infrastructure manager (even while ownership of infrastructure and services can be under the same company). </p>
<p>When it comes to liberalising passenger services, the word “liberalise” is open to interpretation. It could be taken to mean they must be run by private companies, which would rule out any renationalisation in mainland Britain. But that looks to me like the very worst-case scenario. </p>
<p>More likely, state-owned passenger rail service companies – which still exist in all member states except the UK – will have to compete to retain the routes they currently run, probably through competitive tenders. The situation would resemble the current situation in Britain, where subsidiaries of the German and Dutch state rail companies both run franchises. </p>
<p>Rail would become similar in this respect to many other public transport markets in Europe, such as provisions for bus services in most European capitals. Again this would include the UK, where state-owned Scottish ferry provider Calmac <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/19/serco-misses-out-on-900m-scottish-ferry-contract/">recently won</a> the right to operate the network for another eight years in preference to private provider Serco. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126983/original/image-20160616-15108-565fpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126983/original/image-20160616-15108-565fpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126983/original/image-20160616-15108-565fpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=149&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126983/original/image-20160616-15108-565fpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=149&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126983/original/image-20160616-15108-565fpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=149&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126983/original/image-20160616-15108-565fpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=187&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126983/original/image-20160616-15108-565fpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=187&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126983/original/image-20160616-15108-565fpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=187&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">UK operator Arriva is owned by Germany’s Deutsche Bahn.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/91369098@N04/16668564110/in/photolist-roWKoo-hP65Zf-qPNjQq-optZJR-oKCw3X-tU9U81-im6DHo-BrXyCi-bpRg7E-od58PW-qPUrMy-djch8B-oi8mnR-p8dVkU-qwmnRr-r28Xjc-ouo9Kh-vBYpMr-pUDdFk-rdk6AH-gq397j-raQaTC-qP2nYZ-boriVX-qwzsnR-rxT4HU-s6ZBzy-7bcHSH-bXdTzE-id1WAt-qEPU21-adfrrk-rccLrJ-pHEfEZ-8dzL47-oWV6jj-GV696K-gQKuBb-qEXBeK-r12wHn-9Uut2a-HJr6dM-dJ12yy-dHUzta-nMrxqp-rfau2w-pvSMqh-9DFs69-qAS8tu-C6um7p">James Passant</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>British lessons</h2>
<p>By introducing a more competitive rail market across the EU, the fourth railway package will in some respects follow the path of the British <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/contents">Railways Act 1993</a>. That privatised Britain’s railways, including the infrastructure business, which was held by private company Railtrack until it was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7268495.stm">taken back</a> into state hands as Network Rail in 2002, and introduced the passenger franchise system currently in place. </p>
<p>The act originally envisaged that direct competition would be introduced into many of these franchises after an initial period of protection for the holder. The policy relied on the dubious assumption that you could make money out of having competing passenger services on a railway. In fact, all but one of the franchises turned out to be loss makers, many of them heavily so – even before the protection period was up. It meant that any competition on these services would effectively involve taxpayers subsidising shareholders to run them, so the idea was quickly forgotten and most lines became monopolies. </p>
<p>The regulator has only allowed direct competition on a few lines where the benefits outweigh the subsidies, the most well known of which is on the <a href="http://www.railexpress.co.uk/news/happy-10th-birthday-hull-trains">Hull to London line</a>. The lesson? You shouldn’t always believe what policy people initially propose. Sometimes the hard economic realities have to come to the fore before you see any semblance of common sense. Those worried about the radical impact of the fourth railway package should bear that in mind. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126984/original/image-20160616-15079-1x0qf4d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126984/original/image-20160616-15079-1x0qf4d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126984/original/image-20160616-15079-1x0qf4d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126984/original/image-20160616-15079-1x0qf4d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126984/original/image-20160616-15079-1x0qf4d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126984/original/image-20160616-15079-1x0qf4d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126984/original/image-20160616-15079-1x0qf4d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126984/original/image-20160616-15079-1x0qf4d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ah British railways.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/94247560@N03/14472860986/in/photolist-o3VckY-roUr8s-CiQxQ8-pmP7YV-qkuuxA-efp4K5-7fJqGM-rAvuaS-D5jVrW-bBZ2rq-oJBZwd-ppQ3rn-p63sSD-keNcfr-nbh7Gn-nf52xj-die5We-cPQNMG-68ubqY-bEefoi-jcWiGE-HG1FvX-9L6C9R-ndWdCp-bCWTRW-r5NN4Y-euNC7K-ppKA5M-eugbza-pC6hTY-qTotNF-p1Sbo2-rq6LPr-pidcYU-ke8CmN-6WeGZn-DCLoSu-nHmnzQ-p5jXxC-7bqTRx-pxrCj3-gbjpEV-m4LK6Y-e3ofdQ-H2EeAa-orvMLD-q8pNSc-hndQow-fcHQDv-bY9aN7">Stephen Tarbit</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The new EU regulations promote competition for the market between rail operators irrespective of ownership structure, but not privatisation. As far as renationalisation is concerned the reality is that, unless the rules are interpreted in an extreme way, they do not make it any easier or more difficult than the structure in place at the moment. The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Nicole Badstuber, researcher in urban transport governance at the London School of Economics and UCL</em></p>
<p>I broadly agree with the author’s outline of the issue. But where the author states that the regulation does not require member states to privatise any aspect of their rail network, my reading of the fourth rail package is that it categorically seeks to dismantle incumbent state monopolies in other EU countries. This rules out reinstating mainland Britain’s old state monopoly, British Rail. While public sector organisations will still be able to run rail services, any service or route will need to be contracted out and not simply awarded. </p>
<p>By liberalising the European rail industry, the fourth rail package is continuing a longstanding EU objective. The EU appears to share the British ideological mindset of the 1990s that led to a fragmented rail network and privatisation. It is arguing for this under the mantra that competition will bring better and cheaper services for passengers. </p>
<p>The EU package may not strictly require privatisation but it is definitely designed to create an environment conducive to this. Curiously, the EU holds up Britain as a role model, despite the fact that many in the UK take a more critical view of the privatisation in hindsight. I would therefore suggest there is a valid case for Mick Cash to say that the package promotes dismantling state rail services and paves the way for privatising operations. </p>
<p>As the author points out, the EU did water down its cornerstone policy of strictly separating rail infrastructure and services operations following intervention by Angela Merkel, among others. While allowances have been made, a large degree of separation is still required by the new rules. To give an example, German state rail company Deutsche Bahn will be allowed to retain its infrastructure and operations and divisions but it will need to make them legally separate entities.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61180/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council via the research programme Transforming the Engineering of Cities. Nicole works on the MacArthur funded research project New Urban Governance looking at transport governance in different cities across the world. This project is hosted at the urban research centre LSE Cities at the London School of Economics. Nicole is also currently supporting the project CREATE, which is looking at the evolution of sustainable transport policies in cities. CREATE is funded by the EU via Horizon 2020. Nicole is a non-active student member of the Labour party. This article does not reflect the views of any research organisation.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Cowie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Brexiters on the Left fear that a UK vote to Remain would permanently put the railways in private hands. Here's our Fact Check verdict.Jonathan Cowie, Lecturer in Transport Economics, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/612592016-06-19T08:03:28Z2016-06-19T08:03:28ZLeft wingers for Brexit need to wake up to what they're about to do<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127203/original/image-20160619-11135-13fpgkx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you listen to some left-wing voices – proponents of what is being called <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/04/labour-rejects-lexit">Lexit</a> – the European Union is an undemocratic, neo-liberal empire. It is ruled by Angela Merkel and an army of cold-hearted, faceless bureaucrats in Brussels who spend their lives plotting to privatise British public services and deliberately making life in Southern Europe as miserable as possible.</p>
<p>Listening to both left-wing and right-wing arguments for Brexit can be rather confusing. Similar to <a href="http://imgur.com/gallery/t3nvF7S">Schrödinger’s immigrant</a> who lazes around on benefits while simultaneously stealing jobs, the EU seems to be at the same time both <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RjUJy7kDOM">communist</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_KYsX2udUs">predatory capitalist</a>. It has transformed Europe into a <a href="http://www.counterfire.org/articles/opinion/18197-5-reasons-to-leave-the-eu">fortress</a> while at the same time <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/665446/Nigel-Farage-Ukip-control-immigration-leave-EU-referendum-June">opening its borders to mass immigration.</a> The EU’s rescue packages for Southern Europe have been too stingy while at the same constituting an outrageous burden to British taxpayers.</p>
<p>You do not have to be an idealist europhile to find these accusations a bit harsh. As a project that’s main purpose is the creation of a single market, the EU is indeed an economically liberal endeavour. Its key purpose is to replace those national laws which hamper trade with common European legislation.</p>
<p>For some member states, such as France or Germany, this often amounts to deregulation, because EU laws tend to be more business-friendly than their national laws.</p>
<p>But that is not the case for the UK. Britain has been driven by neoliberal economic policy for the past four decades. The EU has actually brought back all kinds of protections for workers, consumers and the environment. Among other things the EU forced the UK to introduce the statutory right to paid leave. Before the implementation of the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&amp;langId=en&amp;intPageId=205">EU Working Time Directive</a> in 1998, two million British employees did not receive any paid holiday at all.</p>
<div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props='{"tweetId":"742439477621186560"}'></div>
<p>European integration has clearly been a left-wing corrective to British neoliberalism. Meanwhile, it was actually the UK that has pushed many of those developments in the EU that the left opposes. </p>
<p>Successive British governments have been promoting neoliberal policies and torpedoing social interventions on the EU level. For example, the UK ended up challenging the <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp96/cp9653en.htm">EU Working Time Directive</a> at the European Court of Justice – even though the British government had already managed to significantly water it down during EU negotiations.</p>
<p>Insisting on EU decision-making through such intergovernmental negotiations and hampering the empowerment of the European Parliament, it has also been working against any effort to make the EU more democratic. Moreover, it stubbornly clings to its rebate on the EU budget, leaving it to other EU states to foot the bill of European solidarity. More recently, the UK has failed to display even the most basic solidarity in response to the refugee crisis or to Greek sovereign debt.</p>
<p>Nor do arguments about the EU holding Britain back from re-nationalising public services and the railways stand up to much scrutiny. </p>
<p>The privatisation of British public utilities had a lot to do with British politics and very little with European integration. While the EU Rail Directive opened up the railways for private competition, it did not oblige member states to privatise state-owned service providers. In fact, the UK was the only big EU state to do so.</p>
<p>If a left-wing British government tried to renationalise the railways, or any other utilities, the EU would be the least of its worries. The main obstacles would come from within the UK, most notably from the private sector and, indeed, the electorate. British voters are – whether the left likes it or not – far more economically conservative than most of continental Europe.</p>
<p>Any British left wingers thinking of voting to leave the EU over these issues should perhaps instead consider leaving Britain. </p>
<h2>What happens in practice</h2>
<p>Brexit could only be in the left’s interest if it was followed up by consequential left-wing politics. It would require a Labour party that has significantly moved to the left to get into government very soon. </p>
<p>Giving up on the EU and the left-wing corrective it already provides in exchange for the slim hope of a genuine left-wing government coming to power in Britain is a rather risky gamble. In the short term, Brexit will empower the likes of Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, who have never made a secret of their Thatcherite fantasies.</p>
<p>In the long term, Brexit might render Labour completely impotent. If Britain leaves the EU against the will of the majority of Scottish voters, their appetite for independence will surge again. Needless to say the left’s electoral potential will diminish for generations without the Scottish vote.</p>
<p>The support for Lexit indicates that parts of the left are as ignorant of the EU’s set up, its decision-making processes and its impact on the UK as the right. Both forms of euroscepticism are rooted in misinformation, prejudice and fear. And both their expectations for a post-Brexit future are based on little more than wishful thinking.</p>
<p>With 44% of Labour voters supporting Leave <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-leave-campaign-10-point-lead-remain-boris-johnson-nigel-farage-david-a7075131.html">in a recent poll</a>, it might be the left that paves the way not only for major blue collar job-loss that is likely to follow a post-Brexit economic shock, but also for making neoliberals stronger than ever. And what about all those European workers who have come to Britain to make a living? </p>
<p>Nobody denies that the European Union is far from perfect. But actually, it has been successive British governments that have spearheaded those forces undermining all efforts to make the EU more democratic, more social and more geared towards solidarity.</p>
<p>So if you’re left leaning and vote for Brexit, you might actually do the continental left-wing cause a favour. Without Britain holding it back, the EU might stand a chance at progress. But Brexit certainly won’t help you.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61259/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ragnar Weilandt is affiliated with the EU-funded Erasmus Mundus &quot;Globalisation, Europe &amp; Multilateralism&quot; programme.</span></em></p>The EU drags Britain kicking and screaming to the left. Lexiters need to update their principles before voting on them.Ragnar Weilandt, PhD Researcher in International Relations, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/610992016-06-16T11:43:57Z2016-06-16T11:43:57ZUndecided on the EU referendum? These are the three questions to ask yourself<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126739/original/image-20160615-14057-520hkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If there is one thing people can agree on as they prepare to vote on the UK’s EU membership: comprehensive, comprehensible and trustworthy information is in short supply. Every day, the quality of the debate sinks to a new low – yet the stakes are as high as ever.</p>
<p>How, then, are you supposed to make your decision on June 23? What questions should you ask yourself when you enter the polling booth?</p>
<p>Ultimately, I suggest, there are three core questions you need to consider as you make up your mind. Will you (individually and collectively) be better or worse off? How do you feel about your country, where it is headed, who it is made up of and how it interacts with others? And what does sovereignty really mean to you?</p>
<h2>Question 1: will you be better off?</h2>
<p>There is a near-universal consensus that EU membership has benefited the UK economy, making it more open and, consequently, bigger. And not just for the fat cats. Clearly – as in any economy – while some individuals, regions and businesses have thrived, others have not. But EU membership has demonstrably <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2015/euboe211015.pdf">boosted</a> both economic growth and general living standards. </p>
<p>Many fingers still point at Brussels red tape. And true enough, EU <a href="https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-regulation-and-single-market/">regulations</a> entail costs, which often hit small businesses particularly hard. But consider that many of them would need to be in place in a UK outside the EU as well. Also, most regulations actually protect citizens’ interests – from environmental and food standards to gender equality and workers’ rights.</p>
<p>Then there is the matter of the “<a href="https://fullfact.org/europe/membership-fee-eu/">membership fee</a>”. The Leave campaign’s claim that we send £350m a week to the EU is <a href="https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/uk-statistics-authority-statement-on-the-use-of-official-statistics-on-contributions-to-the-european-union/">indisputably incorrect</a>. It doesn’t count the rebate or other funding the UK gets.</p>
<p>As a proportion of GDP, the UK’s net contribution varies every year; in 2015, it came to £8.5 billion. This amounts to 1.5% of the UK government’s annual spend. The NHS budget is £135 billion, the pensions budget £150 billion. Also consider that leaving <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/about/blog/346">would not simply free up</a> the full sum.</p>
<p>So, would Brexit trash the economy? The Bank of England certainly anticipates a severe short-term shock to confidence. It is more difficult to predict long-term costs but the <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/economists-warn-against-brexit-vote-bh07fdx0t">vast majority of economists</a> think they would be significant. It all depends on which trade arrangements the UK can strike after leaving.</p>
<p>Ultimately, these options boil down to a <a href="https://britain-europe.com/2016/05/31/post-brexit-trade-negotiations-would-pose-significant-practical-challenges-for-whitehall/#more-1705">trade-off</a>. Remaining in the single market will mean accepting immigration and continuing to abide by EU regulations. A free trade agreement means the UK could make its own rules, but it will take years for such an agreement to be concluded and the end result is unpredictable. </p>
<p>As you linger in the polling booth, your decision on this question will need to be informed by your view on the <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/boiling-the-referendum-down-the-single-market/">right balance</a> between national sovereignty and international trade, between risks and opportunities. </p>
<h2>Question 2: who do you want to be?</h2>
<p>In the context of the referendum, the answer to this question usually begins with free movement. Such is the level of concern about this matter that immigration has become the beating heart of the Leave campaign.</p>
<p>First: the facts. EU citizens have the <a href="https://fullfact.org/europe/immigration-eu-referendum/">right to live and work</a> in any other EU country. Currently, 3m EU citizens live in the UK, while 1m Brits live in other EU countries. </p>
<p>As such, the UK cannot significantly reduce the number of EU immigrants. It does however <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/brexitdivisions/damian-green/migration-border-security-and-eu-referendum">retain control over its own borders</a> and over asylum.</p>
<p>The question is how this all matters. The <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/eu-migrants-young-skilled-and-in-employment/">evidence</a> is clear: the UK is not worse off because of EU immigration. Impacts on wages and jobs, no matter how significant for individuals, <a href="http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/how-small-small-impact-immigration-uk-wages">have been small</a> overall. EU migrants <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration">pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits</a>. They make a positive contribution to UK public coffers. And while increasing numbers add to existing pressure on public services, EU migrants also play a significant part in financing and delivering them – particularly the NHS.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, there is anxiety as we struggle with the fallout from a changing (global) economy, compounded by (domestic) austerity politics. To many, immigration is above all a sign of a more entrenched loss of political power. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the biggest concern remains cultural: the historically burdened suggestion that immigration changes the national character of the UK. Ultimately, your answer to the question posed will have to take issue – or not – with this claim.</p>
<p>Local or national political communities will always attract more loyalty than a transnational one of 500m. But is this an either/or question? Do you think that what is good for one can be good for the other: that we have a common stake in the future? In other words, is what ties people together exclusively cultural, a shared heritage – or is it shaping and sharing a set of rules?</p>
<h2>Question 3: what does sovereignty mean to you?</h2>
<p>With low voter turnout, weak understanding of how the EU operates, no pan-European party politics and a lack of scrutiny by national parliaments, the EU is often called undemocratic. Certainly, compared to a country, <a href="https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-democracy/">it has its shortcomings</a>.</p>
<p>But <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23488006">it is incorrect</a> to say Brussels imposes everything on the UK. The European Parliament is directly elected by you. It decides on legislation together with the Council of Ministers – made up of national ministers you voted for. The most important decisions are taken by the European Council, which is made up of national political leaders, including the UK prime minister. They also nominate the top bureaucrats of the <a href="https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-brussels-bureaucrats/">EU Commission</a>, the EU’s civil service. In any case, the commission can only propose, not adopt legislation.</p>
<p>The EU’s democratic credentials will therefore <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/multimedia/democracy/">depend on what you look for</a>.</p>
<p>The Leave campaign’s call to “take back control” is an appealing phrase. But it ignores that in order for any rules-based international order to work, participants must agree to abide by common rules. It also, incidentally, raises more general questions about representative democracy – the idea that you vote for people whose job it is to represent you in political decisions. Direct democracy – such as a referendum – is certainly not about shoring up parliamentary sovereignty. </p>
<p>The EU arose out of a postwar compact. Nation states pooled some aspects of sovereignty to help their economies flourish and to address geopolitical uncertainties. You may feel that part of history is over. You may feel the inevitable compromise and negotiation that comes with joining forces means belittling the status of Britain. Or you might think that in a world that continues to pose significant challenges, bowing out of a compound might bring more disadvantages than benefits.</p>
<p>Ultimately, as you stand in that polling booth, it is entirely up to you to make up your mind. But one thing we all know is this: the outcome of the EU referendum will shape the future of the UK for a long time. So make use of your power and cast your vote.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61099/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The UCL European Institute, which the author heads, receives project funding from the European Commission, among other sources. </span></em></p>A guide to making up your mind on a very important decision.Uta Staiger, Executive Director, UCL European Institute, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/609972016-06-14T15:36:03Z2016-06-14T15:36:03ZPoll of polls: how worried should Remain be as voters come off fence?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126583/original/image-20160614-22377-el6ss6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;rect=9%2C10%2C880%2C519&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">On which side is your bread buttered?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The campaign to keep Britain in the EU has suffered a significant blow at a crucial point in the EU referendum battle with an ICM poll putting Leave further ahead than ever before. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/13/eu-referendum-leave-campaign-takes-six-point-lead-in-guardianicm-polls">poll</a>, published by The Guardian, gave Leave 53% of the vote and Remain just 47% once undecideds had been excluded.</p>
<p>Our poll of polls confirms a significant swing towards a Leave vote. An analysis of 239 opinion polls on voting intentions in the referendum conducted since September 2010 shows the trend as of June 13, 2016. If it continues, Britain will vote to leave the EU on June 23.</p>
<p>While not quite hitting the heights of the single ICM poll, our trend analysis puts Leave on 48% after a recent surge. Remain is on 44%, with 8% undecided.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126576/original/image-20160614-22380-19m2bxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126576/original/image-20160614-22380-19m2bxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126576/original/image-20160614-22380-19m2bxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=307&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126576/original/image-20160614-22380-19m2bxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=307&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126576/original/image-20160614-22380-19m2bxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=307&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126576/original/image-20160614-22380-19m2bxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=386&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126576/original/image-20160614-22380-19m2bxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=386&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/126576/original/image-20160614-22380-19m2bxm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=386&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Poll of polls.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Whiteley/Clarke</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Importantly, the Leave surge coincides with a significant fall in the number of undecided voters, the implication being that many people are coming off the fence and have decided to vote for Brexit.</p>
<h2>LeDuc’s Law of Referenda</h2>
<p>The only ray of hope for Remain at this stage in the campaign is LeDuc’s Law. This refers to a regularity discovered by our colleague, Larry LeDuc, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto.</p>
<p>LeDuc has studied many referenda around the world over a significant period of time. He found a tendency for people to vote increasingly for the status quo as the campaign progresses. This occurs even when a large majority prefers to reject the status quo at the start of a campaign.</p>
<p>Significant numbers of people begin to have second thoughts during the campaign, so the proposed change is very often rejected by the time polling day comes around. This occurred in the 2011 referendum on changing <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573">Britain’s electoral system</a> and in the 2014 vote on <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/scotland-decides-14">Scottish independence</a>. In this case, it would mean that voters will ultimately opt to stay in the EU, after a period contemplating voting for Brexit. </p>
<p>The psychology of LeDuc’s law is that when individuals are asked about a major political change well in advance of the decision date they will often give an off the cuff answer which doesn’t involve much thought. Their reactions are often stimulated by the desire to protest. In the case of the European Union, that reflects the eurozone crisis and the mishandling of the immigration issue. </p>
<p>However, as decision day approaches, people have time to think more deeply. They start to focus on what the issues mean for them and their family and to put the big questions into context – will leaving the EU improve or damage the country?</p>
<p>As decision time approaches, risk aversion can take over, and on the day of the vote many will opt for the status quo on the grounds that it is less risky than a major change which appears to have many unknown consequences. This is why the Remain campaign has strongly emphasised the risks of leaving and the Leave campaign has tried to argue that staying is more risky than leaving.</p>
<h2>There’s a catch</h2>
<p>So the Remain campaign could take some heart from LeDuc. However, there is another effect at work in the EU referendum. The negativity of the campaign and the willingness of both sides to use dubious statistics to support their case may be having the effect of putting people off voting altogether.</p>
<p>If so, turnout will decline, which is probably bad news for the Remain campaign. This is because there is evidence to suggest that Brexiters are more enthusiastic than Remainers about the issue, and are more motivated to vote even in the face of a blizzard of negativity. This clearly offsets LeDuc’s law. So the final results will depend on a race between perceptions of risk and apathy engendered by mud-slinging.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60997/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Whiteley receives funding from the ESRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harold D Clarke receives funding from ESRC and NSF (US).
This article does not reflect the view of the research councils.</span></em></p>The trend is headed in Leave's favour.Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of EssexHarold D Clarke, Ashbel Smith Professor, University of Texas at DallasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/610402016-06-14T14:22:35Z2016-06-14T14:22:35ZA powerful vision of Britain as a European leader – thank Gordon Brown for that<p>Gordon Brown’s intervention in the EU referendum debate on behalf of the Remain camp was long overdue. The campaign has come to be seen as a sort of <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-men-and-a-vote-eu-referendum-is-turning-into-a-tory-boys-own-story-59853">Dave and Boris show</a> – a blue-on-blue battle for the Conservative soul.</p>
<p>Fresh on the heels of his Scottish referendum success, the former Prime Minister has produced a <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/688/attachments/original/1465737084/postivereformeuropev2.pdf?1465737084">document</a> outlining how Britain can make a positive contribution to reforming the EU. It’s a welcome change from trying to frighten people into voting to remain in the EU.</p>
<p>It is true that Brown has chosen some curious examples of European successes so far on the campaign trail – you don’t, for example, appeal to Brexiters by talking about how active the EU is on human rights issues or enlarging the union to more countries. But some of his points have a good chance of resonating. </p>
<p>It is particularly welcome to hear him speak of how Britain can be a leader in Europe and of how Europe can lead in the world. It has shown its potential in the financial crisis and the Paris climate change talks.</p>
<p>Brown is calling for Britain to take its European Union Presidency in 2017 seriously, and to commit to creating jobs from within Europe. He wants to see reforms to European energy and environmental policy and action on tax havens. All told, he is providing the bigger picture aspiration that has so far been strikingly absent in the referendum debate. </p>
<h2>Making up for lost time</h2>
<p>Brown’s call for action is a useful reminder that this should be a debate about the UK’s standing in Europe and the world. It is ultimately a stark choice between isolationism and continuing to be a strong international player.</p>
<p>“Too little, too late”, critics might argue. They might also point out the conflicting messages being sent out by the Remain camp. Brown’s internationalist view is at odds with David Cameron’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/four-key-parts-of-britains-new-deal-with-europe-explained-by-an-expert-in-eu-law-54124">renegotiated deal</a> safeguarding the UK’s “special status” in the EU, which boils down to a series of exemptions from some fairly important EU rules. Then, of course, there is Jeremy Corbyn, who rates his passion for the EU at a miserable seven (or maybe seven-and-a-half) out of ten.</p>
<p>If you are still undecided about how to vote, how do you reconcile all this? This is an important point, because <a href="http://bit.ly/1sEkWiR">mobilising undecided voters will be vital</a>.</p>
<p>Others might see Brown’s approach as a desperate effort to appeal to post-imperialist – chauvinistic – visions of continuing <a href="https://theconversation.com/breaking-news-world-war-ii-is-over-britain-is-a-european-country-56047">British grandeur</a>. We can look to the Scottish and Greek referendums for guidance on this. In both cases, ultra-patriotic rhetoric proved deeply appealing to voters.</p>
<p>Against this backdrop, and with only days to go, can Gordon Brown realistically hope to reverse the damage inflicted by the many years of Conservative party (in concert with UKIP and tabloid media) scapegoating the EU?</p>
<p>Labour has sat on the fence for a dangerously long time but if Brown does believe in the vision he is peddling, there are valuable lines of argument to develop. </p>
<p>From the economy, to law, to free movement and culture, Britain has contributed hugely to what Europe represents today. It is among the countries with the highest number of citizens living in another EU country (the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503908/54538_EU_Series_No2_Accessible.pdf">government estimate</a> is approximately 2m people). The City of London is the <a href="https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/eu-and-regulation/publications/Documents/london_europe_and_the_world's_financial_centre.pdf">economic centre</a> of Europe. British corporate law rules and practice have influenced the shape of EU regulatory regimes for the protection of shareholders and the prevention of market abuse.</p>
<p>The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) often draws upon decisions of the <a href="http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/1/103.full">UK Supreme Court</a>. Many protections for <a href="http://bit.ly/1tojTUa">EU citizens as consumers</a> have been modelled on British legislation. Legal aid, fair trial guarantees and protections for defendants when they are arrested provide <a href="http://www.brineurope.com/#!European-human-rights-network-urges-EU-institutions-to-continue-to-work-towards-strong-legal-aid-directive/guzjp/572c89cf0cf2803377caf377">inspiration for EU legislation</a>. British intelligence agencies are highly relied upon in the common fight against terrorism and organised crime in Europe. British universities attract some of the best talent from Europe and produce a critically important volume of research, <a href="https://royalsociety.org/%7E/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-funding/uk-membership-of-eu.pdf">being among the largest recipients of research funding in the EU</a>. </p>
<p>The list is endless. It highlights how much Britain already leads in Europe, providing a refreshing alternative to rhetoric about bullying Brussels. It might not be too late for voters to be persuaded about the benefits of staying in the EU.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61040/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos is the founder and director of the &#39;Britain in Europe&#39; (BiE) think tank. BiE is based at Brunel University London and brings together academics, legal practitioners and human rights NGO members from across the UK and Europe.
Dr Giannoulopoulos is grateful to BiE members, Prof Julian Petley and Prof Arad Reisberg, for contributing views to this comment. He has also drawn on research and public engagement work undertaken by other BiE members, notably Prof Justin Fisher (on undecided voters), Sir Geoffrey Nice QC (on the UK and European human rights), Mr Stephen Kon (on the business case for &#39;Bremain&#39;) and Prof Valsamis Mitsilegas (on security and EU law).</span></em></p>The former PM is appealing to British exceptionalism in the right way.Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos, Senior Lecturer in Law, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/608972016-06-14T12:59:28Z2016-06-14T12:59:28ZFact Check: do 89% of businesses really support Remain?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126181/original/image-20160610-29219-1v16oq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ready for my close up.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;language=en&amp;ref_site=photo&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;use_local_boost=1&amp;autocomplete_id=&amp;searchterm=business%20attitudes&amp;show_color_wheel=1&amp;orient=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;media_type=images&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;color=&amp;page=1&amp;inline=216365722">Irina Braga</a></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p><em>Independent poll: 89% of businesses back staying in Europe.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Britain Stronger in Europe <a href="http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#5V2t8bz1mzTk24zu.97">campaign claim</a></strong></p>
<p>Immigration and the economy have taken centre stage in the British EU referendum. The future economic performance of the UK in particular – its growth, job and wealth creation prospects – depends on how business fares. This helps explain why business attitudes to the referendum have regularly been published in the run-up. </p>
<p>The Britain Stronger in Europe <a href="http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#vSBLftmwq0i1Jt5E.97">campaign relies on</a> one such survey in its campaign literature. Conducted by the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe (COBCOE), it <a href="http://www.cobcoe.eu/files/cobcoe-europe-member-poll-results-fa-aLS79E.pdf">found that</a> 89% of member businesses were opposed to a UK exit from the EU, while only 7% were in favour. The claim is <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-our-liberal-democrat-leaders-are-saying-about-the-eu-referendum-50868.html">regularly repeated</a> by voices on the Remain side as evidence of the economic damage that a Brexit would cause. So is it accurate?</p>
<p>In fact, it turns out that the survey does not include any UK businesses. Instead, it reflects the views of the members of a total of 38 national chambers of commerce in countries ranging from Austria to Israel to Ukraine. This appears to make it quite a strange survey for Remain to be relying on. </p>
<p>When you look at other business surveys, several things stand out. They too tend to back Remain – if a little less decisively – and the balance of opinion is much tighter with smaller companies than larger ones. The CBI’s <a href="http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/cbi-to-make-economic-case-to-remain-in-eu-after-reaffirming-strong-member-mandate/">survey in March</a> of nearly 800 UK companies found 84% backing Remain among large companies and 71% among smaller ones. </p>
<p>The British Chambers of Commerce <a href="http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/policy-maker/policy-reports-and-publications/bcc-eu-survey-business-vote-tightens-as-referendum-campaign-heads-to-the-finish-line.html">survey</a> of 2,200 members from May found 54% backed Remain compared to 37% against. The smallest businesses were more narrowly in favour, however. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/02/uk-small-businesses-are-evenly-split-on-brexit-poll-says">TNS survey</a> in June of more than 500 small and medium-sized companies found 38% backed Remain and 37% Leave. Yet a new <a href="https://theconversation.com/british-fishermen-want-out-of-the-eu-heres-why-60803">academic survey</a> of UK skippers and boat owners in the fishing industry <a href="https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/uk/942753/skippers-want-out-of-eu-according-to-aberdeen-university-research/">found that</a> 92% favour a Brexit. This all raises interesting questions about the differences between various businesses. </p>
<h2>Scottish echoes</h2>
<p>During the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results">Scottish independence referendum</a> of 2014, I conducted <a href="http://www.business-school.ed.ac.uk/blogs/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2016/01/Working-Paper-Referendum-CEO-Guide-Kelly-and-MacKay-08-January-2015.pdf">extensive research</a> into business attitudes. Despite close to 50 referendums on various issues across Europe since 2011 alone, there has been very little systematic research of this kind into business opinion. </p>
<p>I found business attitudes to an independence referendum are generally driven by a small number of variables: where the business is headquartered; the ownership structure; the jurisdiction where the balance of its trade takes place; and the most advantageous place for foreign direct investment by multinationals. Having applied the same framework to the EU referendum, it turns out the same variables apply. </p>
<p>Business leaders of UK-headquartered listed companies, or multinationals with subsidiary headquarters in the UK with significant trade in the EU, have been the most perplexed by a vote to leave and most willing to relocate business investment elsewhere. That is why 36 heads of FTSE 100 companies <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35636838">signed an open letter</a> arguing for a Remain vote, and 95% of members of the British American Business Association <a href="http://www.babc.org/public/docs/BATI2016_Guide_WEB.pdf">oppose</a> a Brexit. </p>
<p>Heads of privately-owned companies with comparable EU trading interests also oppose a Brexit, though without the same shareholder pressures they tend to be more willing to soldier on with UK investments if it comes to pass. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/18/richard-branson-says-eu-exit-would-be-saddest-day-for-britain-european-union-virgin">Think about</a> Sir Richard Branson and the Virgin group, for instance. </p>
<p>People who run private companies whose trade is more global are either ambivalent or in favour of leaving – if they can identify a specific benefit for their business. Lord Bamford, the chairman of building group JCB who <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36485985">came out</a> in favour of Leave recently, is a prime example of the latter. Companies of this sort are a minority, however. </p>
<p>Business leaders most in favour of Leave are the ones who mainly trade at home and see a cost advantage or a greater ability to influence the political process after separation. Tim Martin of pub chain Wetherspoons <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/jd-wetherspoon-interview-tim-martin-eu-referendum-democracy-brexit-imf-bee-mats-2016-6">fits into</a> this category. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>It appears misleading for the Remain side to be using the COBCOE survey, though business surveys do generally lean towards the same point of view. Bigger businesses are pro-Remain – unless their sales are primarily either global or UK-focused – while small and medium-sized businesses trading predominantly at home take a different view. </p>
<p>Sectors with a strong view one way or the other are driven by their own motivations – for instance UK fishermen tend to feel unfairly constrained by fishing quotas allocated by the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/index_en.htm">European Common Fisheries Policy</a>. </p>
<p>On the whole, however, the business case for Brexit doesn’t appear to add up. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Michael Danson, professor of enterprise policy, Heriot-Watt University</em></p>
<p>This piece has identified that, as with many of the claims made by all sides in the EU referendum, Britain Stronger in Europe has been rather fast and loose with presenting COBCOE’s statistics. Nevertheless it is believable that firms successfully doing business internationally would support the status quo, while those struggling at home may have different concerns or else reflect <a href="http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/">the divisions</a> within the country as a whole.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126528/original/image-20160614-22386-6dblzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126528/original/image-20160614-22386-6dblzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Good for who?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;language=en&amp;ref_site=photo&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;use_local_boost=1&amp;autocomplete_id=&amp;search_tracking_id=EPT7E9qi4jCtGcbpzDvHBQ&amp;searchterm=business%20opinion&amp;show_color_wheel=1&amp;orient=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;media_type=images&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;color=&amp;page=1&amp;inline=284750732">Mad Dog</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some questions in business surveys are poorly posed or ambiguous – does “good for business” mean for my firm, for trade, or for the economy as a whole? Are these mutually compatible, or is what is good for a multinational contrary to the needs of smaller companies? As with the Scottish referendum, companies’ opinions seem dominated by self-interest, which never necessarily means in all our interests. </p>
<p>Apart from misleading us over business opinion with the COBCOE survey, Britain Stronger in Europe <a href="http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#kQ5lUsDTLMQvRdir.97">also promotes</a> many campaign slides that play up the worst case scenario in the short-term forecasts of banks, treasuries and international bodies – all of which undermine the objectivity of its message. These contrast different futures under the same free-market regime rather than presenting an alternative inclusive EU agenda that could lead to a different future for the continent. </p>
<p><em>This article originally said that the BCC’s survey had micro-businesses backing Brexit. This has now been corrected.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60897/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brad MacKay receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council in the Future of the UK and Scotland programme, but the views expressed here are entirely his own. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike Danson is on the board of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, but the views in this piece are entirely his own.</span></em></p>The Remain campaign cites this survey as proof of the economic benefits of staying in the EU. Here's the story behind the numbers.Brad MacKay, Professor in Strategic Management, University of St AndrewsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/605292016-06-13T09:15:17Z2016-06-13T09:15:17ZFour ways to have your say in Europe<p>Taking back control from an anti-democratic EU is a central theme of the EU referendum leave campaign. But, in fact, stories about Brussels dictating our lives are overblown at best, and deeply misleading at worst.</p>
<p>Here are four ways that every citizen can influence the European Union.</p>
<h2>Voting at home</h2>
<p>The most obvious way in which UK citizens influence the EU is by voting in British elections. Over decades elected representatives have approved the EU’s current shape and powers by voting with solid majorities for each treaty change and giving effect to supranational law. </p>
<p>National ministers appointed through general elections wield significant power in the day-to-day running of the EU. They make up the Council of Ministers, which plays a major role in setting legislation. And national leaders are responsible for strategic direction via the <a href="https://theconversation.com/inside-the-eu-a-beginners-guide-to-brussels-59553">European Council</a>.</p>
<p>Aside from this, the UK retains the power to make its own decision in the areas most sensitive to UK citizens. That includes taxation, pensions, health and defence. </p>
<p>It is true that the UK does not always have its way in Europe, but as my <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/11/02/does-the-uk-win-or-lose-in-the-council-of-ministers/">LSE colleagues have shown</a>, British governments have voted with the winning majority in 87% of the votes held between 2009 and 2015. So the idea that the UK is regularly being “dictated to” is misleading. </p>
<p>If citizens are unhappy about Brussels policies, they can make a big difference by electing a British government with different ideas for what it wants to do when wearing its EU-hat.</p>
<h2>European elections</h2>
<p>Then there are the elections to the European Parliament. These take place every five years, giving the British people – like all other EU citizens – the chance to directly choose their representatives in Brussels according to a system of proportional representation, benefiting smaller parties such as UKIP and the Greens.</p>
<p>The parliament has real power to block or change legislation in most areas. It also has increasing power over the European Commission as the regulator and proposer of new legislation. The parliament has used resolutions and its budgetary powers to influence policies even if it does not have the formal power to do so.</p>
<p>Even more significantly, the European Parliament has now significant power over who will be appointed president of the European Commission. In 2014, each of the major party groupings had a policy manifesto and ran a nomination process for candidates for commission president. When the European Peoples Party emerged as the winner, its candidate, Jean-Claude Juncker, was duly elected president. </p>
<p>The fact that national governments, after initial hesitation, agreed to this, marked a significant improvement from previous practice when governments nominated commissioners and elected by consensus a president (and the parliament could only say yes or not to the whole commission).</p>
<p>So if citizens do not like the commission president or his/her team, they can participate through their national parties in the nomination process of the candidates and then vote at the next European Parliament election for the party grouping with the most convincing person and manifesto.</p>
<p>Moreover, the parliament takes its role seriously when it comes to holding the commission to account. In 1999, it <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8207000/8207105.stm">forced the whole commission</a> to resign in the wake of a corruption scandal. It can do so again with the support of transnational investigative journalism that can expose wrong-doing as it does in a national arena.</p>
<h2>The power of the crowd</h2>
<p>The general public also has the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/basic-facts">Citizens Initiative</a> as a last avenue of influence. The European Commission is obliged to consider new legislation on a particular issue if it is backed by at least one million EU citizens, coming from at least seven of the 28 member states. Even though if it does not force the commission to actually legislate, it is a powerful tool to put issues on the agenda.</p>
<h2>Take an interest</h2>
<p>Finally, citizens, civil society actors as well as the media need to more closely scrutinise what happens in Brussels. This is how you prevent ministers from <a href="http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/boris_johnson_the_liberal_cosmopolitan_case_to_vote_leave">“saying one thing in Brussels, and another thing to the domestic audience”</a>, as Boris Johnson claims they do as if this was something that could not be challenged or changed.</p>
<p>It has been <a href="https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2015/pb_ag_westminster_27may15-11240.pdf">argued that the House of Commons’ scrutiny of European affairs has been weak</a> and many MPs have lacked the motivation to invest time in the job as they feel it wouldn’t attract much attention from the press and therefore would not be appreciated by the general public. This can be changed.</p>
<p>The media should also <a href="http://theconversation.com/eu-referendum-british-media-coverage-of-europe-is-letting-voters-down-57685">report more extensively and accurately</a> about who makes the decisions in Brussels and what the consequences are for the rest of Europe.</p>
<p>As we have seen, the European Union has evolved over the years to allow for more participation of citizens over who governs and for what purpose, sometimes against the initial resistance of some national governments who see democracy in Europe as a zero-sum game - if you win, I lose. However, as the current referendum debate shows, national politicians can suffer from blaming faceless “Brussels” rather than taking full responsibility for their decisions. </p>
<p>Building a more democratic Europe is a process that starts at the national level, but cannot stop there. As long as Britain is a member of the EU its citizens retain the opportunity to engage and shape this process. Choosing to leave would not automatically enhance democracy either, if Britain became like Norway to safeguard its access to the Single Market. In this case it would still be governed by the EU in many areas of the Single Market and participate in freedom of movement without having a formal say in the EU’s core institutions or influence its future direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60529/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christoph Meyer is affiliated with the Centre of European Policy Studies (CEPS).</span></em></p>Here are four ways in which, you, the citizen, can decide what goes on in Brussels.Christoph Meyer, Professor of European and International Politics, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595672016-06-08T12:26:35Z2016-06-08T12:26:35ZUKIP founder: why Britain must leave the European Union<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123184/original/image-20160519-30699-t7tbtm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For an EU already seething with popular discontent and a eurozone still hovering on the brink of dissolution, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">Brexit</a> represents an existential challenge.</p>
<p>For Britain, on the other hand, it promises liberation. It is the chance to return to normal self-government – and it is normal in the modern world for nations to run their own affairs.</p>
<p>State rivalry has occasionally caused wars in Europe in the past. However, democratic nation states were never a cause of war – resistance to their emergence by supranational empires was. European supranational empires have never been the friends of democracy. That remains the case today.</p>
<p>The attempt to unite all nations of Europe into one polity and one economy has been a distinctly abnormal experiment and is historically misconceived. Europe is a state system, not a state. It overtook the rest of the world economically and politically centuries ago precisely on account of its disunity. It was disunity that allowed for competition in, and cross-pollination of, political and economic ideas across the continent.</p>
<p>Global historians call this process the <a href="https://mises.org/library/european-miracle">European Miracle</a>. Examples of the working of this European miracle abound: persecuted Jews in the Middle Ages and Huguenots after 1685 could emigrate from one state to find freedom in another; academies were established during the Enlightenment specifically to circulate ideas; Bismarck’s welfare reforms in Germany were copied everywhere.</p>
<h2>A case apart</h2>
<p>Britain had a particular place in this miracle. It was a source of new ideas and technologies. It was the prime example of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government. But perhaps more importantly, Britain, as a sovereign state, regularly had to use her independence to save Europe from unification. It did so under Habsburg, French, Napoleonic, German and Nazi imperialism. As a result, European democracy owes its emergence and survival in large measure to British sovereignty.</p>
<p>In the struggle to remove the yoke of French revolutionary and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/napoleon">Napoleonic imperialism</a> – a struggle that took quarter of a century – it was the stubbornness of British opposition that led to French defeat. The whole of Europe, meanwhile, had been conquered and reorganised by the Emperor of the French. No other power opposed the French so persistently or did so with such success on land and sea as did Britain.</p>
<p>The Younger Pitt said famously:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>England has saved herself by her exertions and will, I trust save Europe by her example.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And she did. Her naval victories, plus the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/event/Peninsular-War">Peninsular Campaign</a>, did much in themselves to defeat Napoleon. Moreover, without British subsidies, the great powers of the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/topic/War-of-the-Fourth-Coalition">Fourth Coalition</a> could simply never have afforded to arm the troops that fought the crucial <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;aid=9236267">Wars of Liberation</a> in Germany and France in 1813 and 1814.</p>
<p>In the struggle against Hitler, Britain was once again called upon to face a united Europe. If she had come to terms in 1940, the fate of European democracy would have been sealed forever. Hitler, by 1943, was painting himself as the leader of Europe and calling for European volunteers to fight Bolshevist barbarism. Europe fought back but it was Britain’s resistance, again, that saved the day.</p>
<h2>Lessons from history</h2>
<p>Since 1945 the European miracle has, to a certain extent, continued. European growth has been driven not by EU policies but by individual states copying the <a href="http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/the-supply-side-revolution-in-britain?___website=uk_warehouse">economic supply-side reforms</a> advocated most notably by Margaret Thatcher.</p>
<p>EU policies – from agriculture and fisheries to the euro – on the other hand, have been detrimental to the European economy. Bad policy enforced across a continent by a centralised bureaucracy continues to be a recipe for disaster.</p>
<p>The paradox is that the more the new European empire consolidates, the quicker it will decline – and take Britain down with it.</p>
<p>What a contrast with the situation, tried and tested through centuries of application, when Britain, as a completely independent state, could pass laws to establish a unique banking system, control her monarchs, encourage an industrial revolution, establish free trade, expand democracy and set up a welfare state (including the NHS) without having to ask the permission of any foreign bureaucrat. Those who know what is best for the British are the British.</p>
<p>These lessons from history need to be stressed since it is imperative to realise that the EU is essentially a political experiment aimed at creating the modern equivalent of a supranational empire. We are told that to continue to trade with it we must continue to accept EU law, EU citizenship, EU policies and EU institutions. All this is needed for “ever-closer union” – the political agenda that seeks to destroy British sovereignty.</p>
<p>Yet, if history teaches us anything it is that both Britain and the continent benefit from a Britain that is fully sovereign, independently-minded and able to act in the interests of herself and her European neighbours. Britain, therefore, needs to quit the EU.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59567/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Sked wrote a pamphlet on the case for Brexit for Global Britain but does
not support any political party. </span></em></p>Europe has thrived in spite of supranational interference – not because of it.Alan Sked, Professor of International History, London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/571812016-06-07T11:42:48Z2016-06-07T11:42:48ZYes, the EU values businesses over people – but is Britain any better?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125361/original/image-20160606-25976-17dx2ov.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the EU referendum campaign entering its final phase, most of the arguments seem to be about the short-term implications for British politics and the wider economic consequences of leaving the union.</p>
<p>But one topic has been generally absent from discussions so far, even though it has featured prominently in the <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/uk/2016-uk-settlement-process-timeline/">negotiations between the UK and the EU</a> and in the relevant <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/502291/54284_EU_Series_No1_Web_Accessible.pdf">government White Paper</a>: the objective of fostering competitiveness within a reformed EU. </p>
<p>The idea is that European companies should be able to beat international competitors by offering better products, at low prices. It also implies direct competition between companies within the European single market. More importantly, though, it requires governments to do all they can to support national companies. </p>
<p>That sounds like common sense, but the question is how you go about helping businesses thrive and whether you are compromising your responsibilities towards citizens to do it. Businesses like reduced regulation, weaker social protection for workers and tax breaks – but do ordinary people?</p>
<h2>Business first</h2>
<p>After negotiating a special place for the UK in the EU earlier this year, David Cameron claimed to have <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/502291/54284_EU_Series_No1_Web_Accessible.pdf">“secured a firm commitment”</a> from the EU that it would push the competitiveness agenda harder. </p>
<p>And there are clear signs of strong dedication to these goals. There is a plan, for example, to make sure new laws meet the needs of small businesses wherever possible, something which grants business interests a degree of superior status that should upset any democratically minded person. There is also a significant drive to prepare the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-37258">Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership</a> – a wide reaching deal between the US and the EU that would lower social and environmental standards.</p>
<p>The UK and the EU both want to engender a “climate of entrepreneurship” in Europe because they claim that economic progress comes from the genius of entrepreneurs alone, who need to be left alone to thrive.</p>
<p>They both work on the assumption that regulation is intrinsically problematic. So-called red tape, they believe, stifles entrepreneurial activity. They also view taxation (especially if it is imposed on companies or their owners and shareholders) as undermining the competitive advantage of national economies in the global race.</p>
<h2>People second</h2>
<p>But this narrow interpretation of competitiveness assumes, and at the same time stipulates as universal truth, that economic imperatives ought always to override other concerns. The needs of businesses override the need to protect the environment and the rights of employees. They also override the necessity to raise the revenue it takes to fund essential public services that improve living standards.</p>
<p>Dissent seems futile, because according to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, “everyone agrees on the need to further work on better regulation and on lessening the burdens on business”. </p>
<p>In other words, <a href="http://wickedissues.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/four-frameworks-to-understand-public.html">debates around social policies and the design of public services</a> are only seen as reasonable as long as they don’t affect business interests and help to fill the gaps that markets alone cannot.</p>
<p>These views further the trajectory of the EU towards a predominantly economic model of integration. Hopes that the EU might evolve into a haven of social well-being appear less likely to be fulfilled than ever.</p>
<h2>Two sides of the same coin</h2>
<p>But the EU, for all its obsession with pleasing businesses, does continue to hold the UK back from some of its more radical attempts to prioritise business interests over <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-brexit-would-be-bad-for-employment-rights-55890">employment rights</a>. It has, for example, stopped the UK from repealing the <a href="http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/workingtimedirective.htm">working time directive</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/leaving-eu-would-be-bad-for-women-but-staying-in-doesnt-look-too-great-either-60280">undermining parental leave</a>.</p>
<p>Within the EU, the UK’s drive towards an ever stronger focus on competitiveness with less regulation (or protection of social standards) is at least slightly slowed. That’s why the outcome of the EU referendum is still important. Even if the two sides have a similar agenda, the UK would probably slide further without the restraints placed on it by EU regulation.</p>
<p>Moreover, other EU countries could put pressure on the EU to move away from its obsession with competition. Member states could push for more investment in sustainable industries, green energy and modern public transport – even if they don’t seem that interested at the moment.</p>
<p>This would be more likely if governments less enthralled by the idea of ever more competition came to power in countries with sufficient clout to alter the course of European integration. That’s an outcome arguably more likely than the UK itself becoming such a country – particularly if it were outside the EU.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57181/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Enrico Reuter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The idea that the British government would do a better job of protecting its people after Brexit doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.Enrico Reuter, Lecturer in Public and Social Policy, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/604942016-06-06T16:10:04Z2016-06-06T16:10:04ZBrexit betting odds: lesson from Scotland is not promising for Leave<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125354/original/image-20160606-25972-16i5gut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Just before they burst. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;language=en&amp;ref_site=photo&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;use_local_boost=1&amp;autocomplete_id=&amp;search_tracking_id=iU2dBgT4PbF3k_J8T7EZMA&amp;searchterm=scottish%20referendum&amp;show_color_wheel=1&amp;orient=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;media_type=images&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;color=&amp;page=1&amp;inline=218099434">Andrea Obzerova</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The runners and riders in the EU referendum are making the final turn into the home straight. Both teams are jostling for position and the race is becoming increasingly acrimonious. The Leave campaign has abandoned the economic arguments and instead is focusing almost exclusively on migration. </p>
<p>The Remain campaign continues to release dire warnings of a post-Brexit world that seems to include all ten plagues of Egypt except slaughter of the firstborn. Following some <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/04/poll-eu-brexit-lead-opinium">good polls</a> for Leave in the past couple of days, the poll of polls <a href="http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/">currently points to</a> a 50-50 dead heat. </p>
<p>Bookies too have been adjusting the odds offered as they seek to maximise their expected gain from the outcome. Over the last few weeks, this resulted in a substantial fall in the implied probability of a Leave outcome – and as I wrote in my <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-campaign-is-doomed-if-bookmakers-are-right-again-57514">previous piece</a> about Brexit odds, the weight of betting was far less promising for Leave than the opinion polls before that anyway. </p>
<p>On April 26, the probability of a vote to leave from the <a href="http://www.oddschecker.com">oddschecker.com</a> average of some 20 bookmakers’ odds stood at 0.35, meaning slightly better than a one in three chance. By May 22 it had fallen to 0.22 or almost one in five. Perhaps the tsunami of warnings from national and international organisations of the economic consequences of Brexit was being factored into punters’ assessments of how the vote will go.</p>
<p>Since then, the news for the Brexit camp has got slightly better. The slide was arrested on May 27 and there has been a modest recovery which took the probability of Brexit up to 0.30 by June 6. Perhaps punters were thinking the switch of emphasis to migration will carry more voter appeal: or that they are more confident of a high turnout among Leave supporters. </p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-238" class="tc-infographic" height="610" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/238/33b50a32b76a46a5e309241d24d47e9c755bf389/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Of course, these predicted probabilities do not mean that a Leave outcome will not occur – just that it is seen as rather unlikely. They reflect all of the information available to punters. This may be drawn from a wide variety of sources – opinion polls, press coverage, personal contacts and so on. The point has been <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bookmakers-prediction-eu-referendum-brexit-winner-a7046966.html">made elsewhere</a> that punters are not representative of the population as a whole. But they don’t need to be to use this information intelligently. </p>
<p>Indeed, not all those betting need to act in an informed way. So long as there are sufficient well informed punters willing to place their bets where they see an opportunity for gain based on the current odds, the odds will come to reflect the underlying chance that the event occurs (with the small complication that bookies always build in a profit margin).</p>
<p>Will the odds change substantially over the remainder of the campaign? It seems unlikely that they can change sufficiently to suggest that a Leave outcome is more likely than a Remain outcome. Nothing in the history of betting odds suggests that a swing of 24 percentage points is possible over a three-week period. </p>
<h2>Ecosse and effect</h2>
<p>The Scottish referendum is a useful precedent. Events during the last few weeks included some surprises which perhaps punters had not anticipated. Most important was the <a href="http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/scots-independence/60436/scottish-independence-odds-bookmakers-shorten-odds-on-no">closing of the gap</a> between the Yes and No polling. </p>
<p>This had a dramatic effect on media coverage and on the politics during the run-up to the vote. It also influenced the bookies’ odds (see graphic below), increasing the probability of a Yes outcome by 16 percentage points between the 23rd day and the ninth day before the polls. But then the upward momentum petered out and by the time of the vote the odds had fallen back to more or less where they had started. </p>
<p><strong>Betting probability of a Yes vote in Scottish referendum</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125353/original/image-20160606-25992-ie4o4t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125353/original/image-20160606-25992-ie4o4t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Source: oddschecker.com.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On June 5, 18 days before the Brexit vote, the probability of a Leave vote stood at 0.30 or 30%. In Scotland, the probability of a Yes vote at the same point before the independence referendum was slightly lower at 0.20. </p>
<p>While the implied probability of the UK leaving the EU is currently higher than the implied probability of Scotland leaving the UK was at that stage, it will take a bigger and more sustained change of events in the last few days of the campaign than that which happened in Scotland to persuade bookies to offer anything like evens on a vote for Brexit. </p>
<p>To see whether Johnson, Gove and co can make it happen, bookmark this piece. The graphic on the EU referendum betting odds will keep updating as we near polling day. </p>
<h2>Update, June 23</h2>
<p>It looks to me that the betting markets have made up their mind that the status quo is the likely outcome. Like in the Scottish referendum, a late surge towards the more radical alternative petered out in the last week of the campaign, perhaps because of the incessant warnings about the potential risks of change. </p>
<p>Based on the odds being offered on different outcomes for the size of the Remain vote, the most likely outcome is Remain 53.5% – Leave 46.5%. Of course there is a margin of error associated with this estimate. Gamblers have a financial incentive in making the correct prediction, but they could be wrong. We will soon know one way or the other.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60494/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bell receives funding from the ESRC, but the views expressed in this piece are entirely his own. </span></em></p>The swing in betting sentiment the month before the Scottish indyref tells us Boris has his work cut out.David Bell, Professor of Economics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/603902016-06-03T14:31:54Z2016-06-03T14:31:54ZEU referendum: the positive case for voting Remain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125036/original/image-20160602-23302-mdnriv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Enough scaremongering. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;language=en&amp;ref_site=photo&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;use_local_boost=1&amp;autocomplete_id=&amp;searchterm=vote%20remain&amp;show_color_wheel=1&amp;orient=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;media_type=images&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;color=&amp;page=1&amp;inline=392252626">nito</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Leave side in the British EU referendum campaign <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-campaign-to-stay-in-the-eu-is-project-fear-says-boris-johnson-a6903216.html">has consistently accused</a> its opponents of scaremongering. To be fair, the Remain side has good reasons for expressing concerns about Brexit. </p>
<p>Elsewhere I have <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/23/economic-reality-brexit-eu-referendum-unicorn-fantasy">argued that</a> the economic costs to the UK of leaving the EU would be very significant over both the medium and long run. What makes the Leave side’s argument so weak is that it has not articulated a coherent and realistic vision of what life outside the EU would mean for the UK. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=943&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=943&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=943&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1185&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1185&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125037/original/image-20160602-23293-7h8vgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1185&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Robert Schuman.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schuman#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-19000-2453,_Robert_Schuman.jpg">Bundersarchive</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But we should also recognise the important and positive role the EU and its predecessor institutions have played in enhancing peace and prosperity for the UK and the whole continent in the last 60 years or so. </p>
<p>The then French foreign minister Robert Schuman, one of the founding fathers of the project, argued in his landmark <a href="http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration/index_en.htm">Schuman declaration</a> of 1950 that the goal should be to make war between historic rivals France and Germany “not just unthinkable, but materially impossible”. </p>
<p>The political leaders of the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:xy0022">European Coal and Steel Community</a> of 1951 and the <a href="http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/traroma.htm">European Economic Community</a> of 1957 envisioned gradual political integration founded on economic solidarity and well-being. As made clear in the preamble of the <a href="http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/traroma.htm">Treaty of Rome</a> which established the EEC, they sought “to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe…” </p>
<p>The treaty referred to the need to “guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition” and to ensure “harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions”. As the Schuman declaration explained: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Europe’s folly</h2>
<p>The difficulty for the EU is that it abandoned this approach of placing the interests of its people ahead of the interests of its institutions. Some of this was well-intentioned, if rather unquestioning. </p>
<p>The EU created a single currency without the fiscal union and institutions to manage the growing imbalances in member states’ finances and trading positions, albeit in an era where global financial crises were seen as very unlikely. The difficulties this has caused in countries such as Greece has <a href="https://theconversation.com/greece-a-bad-deal-for-everyone-44627">called into question</a> the democratic nature of the EU’s institutions. </p>
<p>This is an area where Leave campaigners do quite a bit of scaremongering of their own. They falsely conflate leaving the EU with avoiding future <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36029860">problems of the eurozone</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/21/vote-leave-prejudice-turkey-eu-security-threat">future EU enlargement</a>. </p>
<p>The UK government’s renegotiation with the EU, which would be triggered by a Remain vote, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-best-of-both-worlds-the-united-kingdoms-special-status-in-a-reformed-european-union">addressed</a> the first issue: the evolution of the single market and other decision-making within the EU will not now be driven by the eurozone economies, but will involve all 28 member states. The UK will also not be liable for any eurozone bailouts. As for the accession of any new member, it requires agreement from all existing EU members. </p>
<p>Yet a more powerful positive case can be made for reform which returns the EU to its early principles. Institutions matter greatly for economic outcomes. In their <a href="http://whynationsfail.com">pioneering book</a>, Why Nations Fail, the economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson show the importance of a strong social consensus in driving economic outcomes. </p>
<p>Their arguments are particularly relevant in a supranational grouping like the EU, where you need more inclusive institutions to mitigate the risk of continued social and economic progress being undermined by conflict. Indeed, I would argue this is precisely what the fathers of the EEC had in mind. </p>
<h2>Blueprint for reform</h2>
<p>So what might a future EU look like? One can begin to sketch out three major themes. First, dealing with the eurozone crisis. The <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/beta-political/files/5-presidents-report_en.pdf">Five Presidents’ report</a> of 2015 sees deeper fiscal and economic union as the only answer for the countries within the eurozone to overcome the imbalances which threaten the euro. </p>
<p>Yet a group of economists <a href="http://voxeu.org/article/new-cepr-report-new-start-eurozone-dealing-debt">has suggested</a> you could avoid this further erosion of sovereignty in the short term by restructuring members’ sovereign debt. In tandem, you would reduce the exposure of eurozone banks to this debt and strengthen the existing <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19870747">European Stability Mechanism</a>, the agency set up to lend money to struggling members and their banks. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=900&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=900&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=900&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1130&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1130&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125038/original/image-20160602-23298-1cb7qoy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1130&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pheeep!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;language=en&amp;ref_site=photo&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;use_local_boost=1&amp;autocomplete_id=&amp;search_tracking_id=DRBhU7P7OPlfATuBfpBH8w&amp;searchterm=red%20card%20yellow%20card&amp;show_color_wheel=1&amp;orient=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;media_type=images&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;color=&amp;page=1&amp;inline=144630614">bikeriderlondon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A second change should be to give national parliaments a greater voice in future decision-making. The Cameron government renegotiations include the so-called <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35471248">“red card” procedure</a>. This enables a group of 16 national parliaments to force a review of proposed EU legislation on the grounds it would be better handled at national level. This is tougher on the EU than the existing <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/subsidiarity_en.htm">“orange card” and “yellow card”</a> procedures since it has a reaction deadline of 12 weeks as opposed to eight and introduces the possibility of the legislation being dropped altogether as opposed to merely amended. </p>
<p>“Red card” could further be extended beyond its current restricted parameters, while the threshold could be lowered from the current 16 parliament/55% majority to the same 35% level as the Council of Ministers’ <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/">blocking minority vote</a>. </p>
<p>Finally, a Remain vote could provide a platform for a more flexible union. It is not uncommon for countries in Europe to delegate different functions to regional or devolved tiers of government – for example in Spain, Italy and the UK itself. The UK has granted devolved powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for instance. In Italy some regions have statutes (“regioni a statuto speciale”) which grant them particular legislative and financial autonomy. A similar multi-level approach could be taken for the EU, with groups of countries adopting different levels of integration from other neighbours within the union. </p>
<p>The UK could play a major and important role in reforming the EU’s institutions from the inside. By voting Leave and sitting on the sidelines, it would be unable to influence these important debates and yet would still be affected by the economic spillover in a continent we will always belong to. It’s an argument for remaining that has nothing to do with fear.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60390/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anton Muscatelli is expressing these views in an entirely personal capacity. </span></em></p>There is good reason to fear Brexit, but voting to stay in the EU is also a chance to restore the vision of the founding fathers.Anton Muscatelli, Principal and Vice Chancellor, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/603432016-06-02T13:27:45Z2016-06-02T13:27:45ZUncertain, nostalgic, uncomfortable and bewildered: a portrait of the older Brexit backer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124942/original/image-20160602-23302-1y9r66a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;rect=706%2C293%2C3151%2C1794&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=496&amp;fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/hernanpc/11329353206/in/photolist-ig8TZY-6eLFkK-6wSF9T-6GucDt-qbCozg-7BU613-7BQhha-4qhAU-diQ1Z4-bjTk84-4qhAT-5cJj3c-6y8M3-oTEzX4-jDeAiT-7BQifP-6FNnR8-7BUeF3-5QMJk9-7BUg3E-4cXPFq-eJWH1f-7BU5Cu-D9qf5-8UhDXh-DWbW4-we1mpp-7BQnbH-7BUf3G-7BQkBK-6oMqLp-5Eu8e3-7BU6tL-6y8M8-7BU8d7-hiDjSu-8smt2-75GnMd-72HqKh-7BUaGY-5hhbEU-4p5u1e-6rV3nm-2pMhdN-7ajmau-nHCAg-7eQKPR-8LLW1t-5ZPV6E-qg1Jpd">Hernán Piñera</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It has been suggested, as the EU referendum approaches, that younger voters are more likely to vote to remain than their older compatriots. A <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/02/eu-referendum-young-voters-brexit-leave">poll</a> conducted in April showed 54% of over 55s back Brexit, while only 30% said they would vote to remain in the EU. It showed almost exactly the reverse among voters aged between 18 and 34. The 35-54-year olds were more evenly split, with 38% saying they’d vote to remain and 42% saying they’d leave.</p>
<p>There are a host of possible reasons why older people might be more likely to vote to leave the European Union. They may be xenophobic or they may distrust an alien, distant political system. They may believe that Europe is not democratic. They may fear losing national sovereignty to Brussels.</p>
<p>But at the core of the older Brexiter’s thinking is a combination of nostalgia, uncertainty and bloody-mindedness. Their views are born of dissatisfaction with established practices and bewilderment over technological innovation and information overload.</p>
<p>The world is too fast, too mobile and too globalised. Getting out of Europe would mark a return to more old-fashioned values, a half-remembered simpler life when politicians could be trusted, the media was restrained and Britain was sovereign. </p>
<p>There seems to be a <a href="https://theconversation.com/breaking-news-world-war-ii-is-over-britain-is-a-european-country-56047">nostalgic vision</a> of a Great Britain, untrammelled by external pressures and domestic vicissitudes. We may know it’s wrong but, given the discomfort and mistrust of contemporary politics and the global economy, it seems as though it was somehow better then.</p>
<p>Older voters look back on a period of mass production, when unions were strong and governments championed their nations. Now they see a world based on competing technologies and transnational flows of investment that undermine governments’ ability to manage the economy. They see cross-border migration that seems to displace the familiar with the (often much needed) foreign carer, health-worker, construction worker or even footballer. All these forces have created hostility towards globalisation and that hostility easily finds a scapegoat in the EU.</p>
<p>Brexiters perhaps forget <a href="http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/projects/suez/suez.html">Suez in 1956</a> or the <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/sterling-devalued-imf-loan.htm">IMF intervention of 1976</a>, when the hollowness of Britain’s control over sterling and its economy became only too obvious. They overlook the collapse of Britain’s heavy industry from the 1960s onwards or any <a href="http://www.historyextra.com/feature/winter-discontent-what-can-we-learn-history">winter of discontent</a> and union strike action, or even the bloodiness of Britain’s withdrawal from South-East Asia or East Africa.</p>
<p>But to add to uncertainties about the new and hostility towards the “global” (read “foreign”) there is an element of bewilderment. Gone are “reliable” sources of authoritative information. Governments have lost whatever role they had as gatekeeper between the international and the domestic; domestically, the conventional media often seem to take a delight in being anti-government – regardless of that government’s political hue – for their own political or other reasons, creating suspicion of both.</p>
<p>And, if one can master it, there is the web – where an infinite number of websites offer up limitless information. But the provenance is often dubious and the multiplicity of sources is bewildering. One doesn’t know who to trust. It compounds that loss of deference towards authority and exacerbates uncertainties.</p>
<p>It is not surprising that so many feel they don’t know enough about the EU but also don’t know who to trust for objective information. Or, of course, they can’t be bothered to find out – after all Europe was relatively low on their agenda even if it’s temptingly easy to identify it with unrestrained immigration. And concern for their children’s and even grandchildren’s job prospects leads to the demand for British jobs undertaken by British people – even if they don’t seem to want to do them or don’t have the qualifications to do them.</p>
<p>Perhaps the biggest contradiction of all, though, is the desire to return to old certainties and thereby reduce risk, leading to support for the leap into the unknown. Older voters who support Brexit may have that dream, but it adds up to little more than a nightmare of uncertainties.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60343/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Geoffrey Edwards has been involved in projects that have received funding from the ESRC and the European Commission via FP7 and Marie Curie grants. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils.</span></em></p>It's not hard to see why the EU is being blamed for the ills of a globalised world.Geoffrey Edwards, Emeritus Reader in European Studies, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.